People 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.
2) Player Skill, not Character Skill. You don't roll find or disarm traps, you describe it.
3) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).
4) 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.
Some things I find important:
5) Starting characters aren't special. They don't have elaborate backgrounds or many special abilities.
6) Resource management is important. You shouldn't be handwaving money, encumbrance, torches etc.
7) 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?
A few more common characteristics.
8) The main area of exploration is multi-level dungeons. Secondarily, wilderness hex crawls.
9) The game has clear built in danger signals, that warn the players when the PCs are out of their depth. These appear in two main forms: Dungeon levels (level 2 is harder than level 1), and monsters (orcs are harder than goblins are harder than kobolds). The latter means no orc mooks and orc slaughterkilldeathmachines -- except for NPC parties, meeting an orc means you're facing a monster with 1 HD (there are leader types, but they're part of the lair structure).
10) Wandering monsters make it dangerous to stay in one place. Since they lack the treasure of stay-at-home monsters, it forces the PCs to aggressively seek out lairs/hoards.
11) A sense of humor. Survival horror is leavened by jokes, most of which break the fourth wall.
I pretty much agree with the points in the first post. Four additional very important "old school" points for me are:
A) Combat is fast and fairly abstract. While combat happens a lot in most old school games, it is not time-consuming nor is it intended to be the most interesting part of the session. Minis/pieces and battlemats can be used if the GM wants but they are never required.
B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
C) The rules are merely guidelines for the GM. The rules are not intended or designed to protect players from a "bad" GM. Players can and should, of course, not play with a GM they consider bad.
D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.
I'd agree with Eric and RandallS points... and I do like Matt Finch's primer.
Quote from: Pat;8464958) The main area of exploration is multi-level dungeons. Secondarily, wilderness hex crawls.
I'd take exception with that one. Or maybe it's just that most locations... urban, rural, wilderness are run like dungeons.
Quote9) The game has clear built in danger signals, that warn the players when the PCs are out of their depth.
I'm for giving the PCs some warning clues when they're sticking their necks out but I'm not favoring predictable monsters/settings. Orcs are as variable as men, goblins are weird... and if you're not sure what that thing in the cave is you might not want to fuck with it. Level 9 of the dungeon might be the puppy farm where they breed all the puppies they feed to the thing on Level 10... awww, puppies!!!
Quote from: Simlasa;846505I'm for giving the PCs some warning clues when they're sticking their necks out but I'm not favoring predictable monsters/settings. Orcs are as variable as men, goblins are weird... and if you're not sure what that thing in the cave is you might not want to fuck with it. Level 9 of the dungeon might be the puppy farm where they breed all the puppies they feed to the thing on Level 10... awww, puppies!!!
I think it's hugely important. Because without clear, consistent markers about difficulty, the
players can't make rational decisions, which means they have to rely on the DM to always provide appropriate encounters. And that destroys the whole pseudo-realism of a sandbox world where things exist whether or not the players interact with them today or 10 levels from now.
Quote from: Pat;846512I think it's hugely important. Because without clear, consistent markers about difficulty, the players can't make rational decisions...
I agree that signposts are very important... but I think there are lots of ways to do that besides predictable dungeon levels and monsters. If the orc lair has a lot of heads on posts outside and some of them are still recognizable as some seriously tough guys you met in a previous session... you might think twice about whether these are just your average pie-loving orcs.
Quote from: RandallS;846503I pretty much agree with the points in the first post. Four additional very important "old school" points for me are:
A) Combat is fast and fairly abstract. While combat happens a lot in most old school games, it is not time-consuming nor is it intended to be the most interesting part of the session. Minis/pieces and battlemats can be used if the GM wants but they are never required.
B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
C) The rules are merely guidelines for the GM. The rules are not intended or designed to protect players from a "bad" GM. Players can and should, of course, not play with a GM they consider bad.
D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.
This needs to be made into a fucking poster, with
D highlighted and underlined.
Quote from: Pat;846512I think it's hugely important. Because without clear, consistent markers about difficulty, the players can't make rational decisions, which means they have to rely on the DM to always provide appropriate encounters. And that destroys the whole pseudo-realism of a sandbox world where things exist whether or not the players interact with them today or 10 levels from now.
But having every level be magically a set difficulty destroys it too.
I cannot help but notice that, like many critics of the OSR are quick to point out, this thread assumes right off the bat that "old school" means "old school D&D." :D I'm fine with that, though, and I'll play along.
I just have one point I'd like to dwell on, as it is very, very relevant to my interests.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;8464933) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).
Actually, high-level old school D&D characters are superheroes. "Superhero" is even a level title in OD&D, cribbed from Chainmail.
More to the point, "endgame" old school D&D PCs get to be Batman or Iron Man. They have a cool crib (stronghold!), wondrous weapons and devices beyond mortal ken (magic items accumulated from years of adventuring) and of course, tons of money.
Where it differs from the new school editions is that they don't really get to be Superman or Doctor Manhattan, cleaving down endless hordes of foes in a fell swoop while still living from inn to squalid inn with nothing but the gear on their backs as they adventure.
Quote from: The Butcher;846542I cannot help but notice that, like many critics of the OSR are quick to point out, this thread assumes right off the bat that "old school" means "old school D&D." :D I'm fine with that, though, and I'll play along.
I was gonna argue on that as well but figured there wasn't much point. Still, most of these qualifiers are in place when I'm running Magic World, which is Stormbringer, which is BRP, which is the core of the old Runequest that I gave up D&D for wayback when.
They also seem to be in our GM's head when he's running Pathfinder... so yeah, I don't think which rules you're using matter all that much and it's more about the atmosphere/style.
I never have played too close to that endgame superhero stuff. Not that I'd snub playing an actual superhero game.
16) The game is not about running a predefined, prewritten setting. A GM has to make the game and the setting his own, even if he does use "official" material (like that gorgeous Greyhawk map...), and bonus points if he builds it from scratch.
(I always had more respect for GMs that did that. Even if their maps were sketchy - they were theirs.)
Quote from: The Butcher;846542I cannot help but notice that, like many critics of the OSR are quick to point out, this thread assumes right off the bat that "old school" means "old school D&D." :D I'm fine with that, though, and I'll play along.
I don't think the 7 in the original post or the four in my post are limited to D&D. Most apply to almost all the games I playing or ran in the 1970s: D&D, EPT, Traveller, V&V, RQ, T&T, C&S, Gamma World, Superhero:2044, Starships & Spacemen, etc. Perhaps one or two of the 11 items don't apply to each of these games, but most do.
Very good point in this thread...
Those two expressed exactly what I was looking for:
Quote from: RandallS;846503B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
[...]
D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.
Well said.
Heh, so much of this was the exact problems that the so-called "Swine" had with D&D 3E - a focus on rolling over roleplay, players becoming disengaged from the world as their character level grew, a mathematical focus to gameplay, preplanning 14 levels of character development at level 1.
I'd propose that you're all flailing around trying to define something that's abstract - a "feel". You and your allies against an ultimately uncaring universe. There's no fairness or justice, just the quick and the clever. You can't hide behind some points system, or the rulebook, or some awesome magic your class gets - you get poked with a poison needle and die because you picked up the wrong book. The only other thing I'd add is that the rules are a tool, they're not meant to be a defined social contract. They're a method of action resolution, not a system you interact with.
Frankly I've run and been in Vampire campaigns that had far more of an "old school" feel than certain Monty Haul-esque D&D games I've been a part of.
To me, one major part of "old school" is thin rulebooks. Usually not hardback. In the good old days, D&D was easy to learn. Not just because it had a quick combat system or other factors already mention in this thread, but also because there really weren't that many rules to know. You really could sit down in an afternoon and pretty much read all of the rules, and sit down in 5-10 minutes and make up a character. Nowadays rule books are often hardback color monstrosities on glossy paper. Players have to read all about their options and figure out how their character will develop, becasue if you pick the wrong feat/skill/option at level 2 it might mess up your character when you get to level 8.
Look at all of the early RPGs (particularly the TSR ones) and you will find thin rulebooks. D&D, Metamorphosis Apha, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Black box Traveller, RuneQuest, and more typically were softback in 64 pages or fewer. And that includes both player and DM information.
When I run OD&D, I often do it like this:
1. 3x5" notecards for character sheets.
2. Either a homemade DM screen or "reference sheets" instead of a rulebook.
3. A monster book handy, just in case.
4. Either a thin module, or ususally a dungeon map found through Google and with the rooms filled in by me shortly before play.
When I run 5E, it usually looks more like this:
1. Pre-printed character sheets for easy fill-in by players. Each player has his own copy of the Player's Handbook for referece during play.
2. Either a homemade DM screen or my WotC one.
3. A monster book handy.
4. Some sort of hardback module.
I enjoy both games, but I think my OD&D campaigns have a very different feel to them. That's what "old school" means to me.
Quote from: GreyICE;846554I'd propose that you're all flailing around trying to define something that's abstract - a "feel".
I don't go for an abstract feel, but a practical approach at the table.
For me it concentrates around one key thing. Description in natural language. Both of the situation that the referee presents and of the characters' actions by the players. As well as in the description of the results of those actions after the referee has used the system as needed to figure out what happens.
Not a feel. Not abstract. Concrete things the people at the table actually do.
Quote from: NathanIW;846558I don't go for an abstract feel, but a practical approach at the table.
For me it concentrates around one key thing. Description in natural language. Both of the situation that the referee presents and of the characters' actions by the players. As well as in the description of the results of those actions after the referee has used the system as needed to figure out what happens.
Not a feel. Not abstract. Concrete things the people at the table actually do.
That contributes to the feel (call it atmosphere, mood, or impression, if you dislike words that mean more than one thing (bonus if you catch the irony). But it can't really be the whole of it. Fate Accelerated uses that exact approach - everything is in natural language, and the rolls are
extremely quick - but very few would say Fate Accelerated is old school.
That's why your attempts to boil it down to discrete elements are doomed to failure. Don't make the mistake of assuming everything can be deconstructed to a pile of parts, and that by grabbing the right sort of parts from the right piles you can build a predictable thing.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;846493What say you?
It's a term made up by people trying to catch this 'golden age of gaming' that never existed outside of nostalgia and/or personal experience. Sometimes, it's been used by people who never even existed during supposed said period.
Here's the thing, this 'Golden Age' never existed in the past,
because we're living it now. We have more options, choices and more ways to play the games we want.
Even the OSR movement has created some honest to goodness gems that will be fun for someone looking for that sort of experience.
The hobby has matured, gamers have learned from the experience of others, on both what to do and what not. No matter what game you pick up, old or new, we have a wealth of knowledge and information to draw from.
Now, IS the golden of gaming. And I am so happy I am living during it.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Quote from: GreyICE;846559That contributes to the feel (call it atmosphere, mood, or impression, if you dislike words that mean more than one thing (bonus if you catch the irony). But it can't really be the whole of it. Fate Accelerated uses that exact approach - everything is in natural language, and the rolls are extremely quick - but very few would say Fate Accelerated is old school.
There's lots going on in my paragraph about sticking to description in natural language that isn't applicable to Fate. I've run lots of Fate Accelerated lately. And it's not old school. I think the point of contrast is actually useful:
In old school games the referee describes a situation and the players describe what their characters do in response to that situation. The
referee uses the rules and describes the results. This creates a new situation that the players then respond to. In an ongoing circuit.
In Fate Accelerated, the GM might describe a situation, but the players don't just describe what their characters do. They make all sorts of decisions based on factors other than what was just described. Invoking aspects, accepting or refusing compels, concentrating on characterization, etc.,. And right in the mechanics (approaches) is the idea that *how you go about doing something* is more important than the character's capabilities. There is a fundamental difference in the basic procedure of play. The decision making is based on different factors and the resolution of actions is based on different factors.
I'm not sure why you want the task of identifying the characteristics of old school play to be considered impossible or why you characterize it as flailing after and abstract or a feel, but it is really not. It's about actual people sitting around a table doing things in a certain way.
I'm going to bring in
RandallS' excellent post for further illustration:
Quote from: RandallS;846503B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
Fate Accelerated only really works if the system mastery is there. If everyone at the table is running on all cylinders when it comes to aspects and the fate point economy. When a new person comes to the table, the rest of the people at the table really need to step up their rules handling or things can fall flat. And the person needs to get up to speed fast or they'll be ineffectual as the manipulation of aspects is a major way to contribute to the game.
Quote from: RandallS;846503D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention.
The system mechanics in Fate Accelerated are specifically designed to be interesting for the players to manipulate. They're supposed to make decisions about whether or not to accept a compel. Or when the right moment to spend a fate point to invoke an aspect. And not just aspects on their own characters, but those on other PCs, NPCs, and even places, things or the entire world or thematic focus of the game.
And now back to
GreyICE's post:
Quote from: GreyICE;846559That's why your attempts to boil it down to discrete elements are doomed to failure. Don't make the mistake of assuming everything can be deconstructed to a pile of parts, and that by grabbing the right sort of parts from the right piles you can build a predictable thing.
And yet people are consistently achieving the kind of play described in this thread as old school. Some have never stopped going back decades.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;846561It's a term made up by people trying to catch this 'golden age of gaming' that never existed outside of nostalgia and/or personal experience. Sometimes, it's been used by people who never even existed during supposed said period.
I don't have to be around for the birth of chess to enjoy it as a game. And if it existed inside of personal experience, it existed. As people experienced it. There are people on this very forum who haven't departed from the approach described in this thread for 40+ years.
QuoteHere's the thing, this 'Golden Age' never existed in the past, because we're living it now. We have more options, choices and more ways to play the games we want.
Even the OSR movement has created some honest to goodness gems that will be fun for someone looking for that sort of experience.
I completely agree.
QuoteNow, IS the golden of gaming. And I am so happy I am living during it.
Well said. There is better material now (for free and easier to get) than there was back in the 70s.
Personally I'd reject the "rulings, not rules" one. I find that I have to make a lot less rulings with OSR games than with newer ones.
With old games there's specific rules for some things. Nice specific rules that don't require much of anything in the way of GM adjudication. And then there's no rules for other stuff so you have to make stuff up.
With new games there's vague and general rules for EVERYTHING but the GM has to make rulings all the time to apply those general rules to the specific situation you're in.
So in actual play with Old School games involves the GM making rulings some of the time while in newer games the GM is making rulings all the freaking time while using the skill rules or whatever as guidelines.
For me the second is a hell of a lot more about "rulings not rules" than the second. For me a lot of Old School is about the GM putting down the damn director's bullhorn and sitting back and being a reactive referee while a lot of newer games assume far more active GMing.
The only exception are those games that have vague and general rules for EVERYTHING and then declare that you don't have to making rulings to apply them to the specific situation because that doesn't matter, but screw those games. Those aren't fun.
Quote from: Daztur;846567Personally I'd reject the "rulings, not rules" one. I find that I have to make a lot less rulings with OSR games than with newer ones.
It sounds like you're trying to override and correct the rules of the newer games more often than their designers might have hoped.
The original context of the "rulings, not rules" mantra was in Finch's contrast between 3.x skill mechanics and how you handle things in Swords & Wizardry. If someone doesn't like the results spelled out in 3.x (you rolled X on your jump check, so you jump Y feet*) and feels the need to set them aside, then there's going to be an awful lot of stuff to make rulings on as the skill system is both very broad and specific.
I think it's best to think of rulings not rules as about not having the broad, well defined rules that both the referee and players use. In a traditional board game everyone plays by the same rules. In an old school RPG, the referee applies the rules as needed and everyone agrees to abide by the referee's rulings. The only real difference between a rule and a ruling is whether it was decided on during play or beforehand. What Finch was getting at is that you don't have a well defined player facing mechanic for everything.
*http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm
Quote from: Pat;8464959) The game has clear built in danger signals, that warn the players when the PCs are out of their depth. These appear in two main forms: Dungeon levels (level 2 is harder than level 1), and monsters (orcs are harder than goblins are harder than kobolds). The latter means no orc mooks and orc slaughterkilldeathmachines -- except for NPC parties, meeting an orc means you're facing a monster with 1 HD (there are leader types, but they're part of the lair structure).
I think there's a more common form of danger signal that shows up. A seriously deadly attack or effect that catches the players off guard and tells them they are out of their depth. Like if they go deep into a dungeon and the first creature they encounter reduces one of the characters to ash with a gout of fire. Character death can be a danger signal to the entire group of players.
Monsters that are nearly invincible to the player's attacks can also be a danger signal. A powerful attack bouncing off a good AC or a non-magical weapon proving useless against a creature can also be danger signals on the defensive side of things.
Quote from: Pat;8464959) The game has clear built in danger signals, that warn the players when the PCs are out of their depth. These appear in two main forms: Dungeon levels (level 2 is harder than level 1), and monsters (orcs are harder than goblins are harder than kobolds). The latter means no orc mooks and orc slaughterkilldeathmachines -- except for NPC parties, meeting an orc means you're facing a monster with 1 HD (there are leader types, but they're part of the lair structure).
I think there's a more common form of danger signal that shows up. A seriously deadly attack or effect that catches the players off guard and tells them they are out of their depth. Like if they go deep into a dungeon and the first creature they encounter reduces one of the characters to ash with a gout of fire. Character death can be a danger signal to the entire group of players.
Quote from: NathanIW;846566I don't have to be around for the birth of chess to enjoy it as a game. And if it existed inside of personal experience, it existed. As people experienced it. There are people on this very forum who haven't departed from the approach described in this thread for 40+ years.
The point is that, continuing with your Chess analogy, is that over the centuries that it's been around, new strategies were found, new tactics, new methods to get the end results ad win.
Same thing applies here. And I'd argue that these players' approach may not have changed, but they have and thus their experiences have changed, which in turns have changed how they play their favourite game. Even if they deny or ignore it.
Life IS change. Nothing stays the same, no matter how much we wish it to.
Personally, I like that it's changing, it also means it can improve for the better.
Actually like the 3.5ed Jump rule. Clear, simple and doesn`t require any adjudication, just a bit swingy, but a lot of other rules require DM adjudication pretty much all the time which sucks.
What I mean is stuff like:
0 DC = very easy
5 DC = easy
Etc. etc.
Give me open doors 1-2 on a d6 any day.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;846571The point is that, continuing with your Chess analogy, is that over the centuries that it's been around, new strategies were found, new tactics, new methods to get the end results ad win.
Same thing applies here. And I'd argue that these players' approach may not have changed, but they have and thus their experiences have changed, which in turns have changed how they play their favourite game. Even if they deny or ignore it.
Life IS change. Nothing stays the same, no matter how much we wish it to.
Personally, I like that it's changing, it also means it can improve for the better.
Very well said. And I agree. I don't think the OSR is about clinging to a calcified or rigid approach from the past. It's fundamentally about embracing a free wheeling approach.
I also think the RPG play in the 70s was characterized by heterodoxy. One of the ways AD&D was marketed was as a means of unifying the player base under a single approach. I think that was a mistake, but there were commercial motivations that made it the approach TSR wanted at the time.
Quote from: Daztur;846572Actually like the 3.5ed Jump rule. Clear, simple and doesn`t require any adjudication, just a bit swingy, but a lot of other rules require DM adjudication pretty much all the time which sucks.
What do you think about the Swords & Wizardry rules for jumping? ;)
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) when I discovered the hobby.
New School: Any way of doing things I encountered starting about 9-18 months later, most of which is crap.
Ancient History: Anything people did 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.
""Old School dates from 19XX until 20XX." - Translation: the date when either (a) the system I've always played went into a new edition or overhauled the setting or (b) I switched to playing this way cooler newer system.
""New School" dates from the explosion of indie games on the market" - Translation: it dates from when I picked my head up and noticed there were more game systems out there than I'd previously been aware of, especially when the Sunday afternoon gaming group wanted to check them out.
""New School" means a shift in focus to setting plot, as opposed to strictly character goals." - Translation: I've never particularly gamed in Tekumel, the Third Imperium, Glorantha or anything like that, but I'm sure they only involved dungeon crawls anyway.
Sorry, but damn near about everything the definitionists are trying to label "New School," someone was doing in the 1970s. Point buy? Check. Getting people out of the dungeons? Check. Storytelling? Check. Innovation? Check. Rules light? Hell, White Box D&D had that. Proliferation of new ideas? Christ on a crutch, Alarums & Excursions had heaps of them from 1975 on, and The Wild Hunt started shortly after that. Heaps of supplements and splatbooks? OD&D had those too. Indie games? Everyone, his sister and the family dog were churning out variants and homebrews like crazy.
Alright, I've given my take on what Old School/New School really is, but what I believe the serious advocates think it is is basic: first they make a decision 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.
Folks, you know something? I GM a game (GURPS) that's 25 years old. It didn't pioneer a whole lot; there weren't many core mechanics that no one had ever before tried. It's sure as hell not obsolete. It wasn't the first game I played, and I've tried dozens of others, from OD&D to homebrews to published systems to games just out in the last few years. I can GM with any play style I want with it. Nothing prevents me from allowing character play free rein, just the same way that nothing prevented me last year from hauling a 31 year old homebrew dungeon out of mothballs and refurbishing it for a nostalgia spin.
Fuck the labels. Someone in 1985 might have described it as "new school;" some of the posters in this topic would call it "old school." The distinctions are meaningless, they're very arbitrary, and I'm waiting for the first poster to explain why we need them at all. Go out, play the games you want to play, have fun doing it, and who in the bloody hell cares whether your school is old or new?
Quote from: Ravenswing;846576The distinctions are meaningless, they're very arbitrary, and I'm waiting for the first poster to explain why we need them at all.
And yet when I go to a blog and see something like this somewhere on the page:
(http://i.imgur.com/543RPiZ.png)
and then look at the content, it ends up meeting some common expectations.
What's it useful for? To quickly identify information that may or may not be relevant to you.
I'm a huge RuneQuest fan. Despite it being very old, I've come to accept that when people say "old school" or "OSR" or put an image like the one above on their blog, that I likely won't be seeing any RuneQuest content.
It's okay that the term is D&D-centric. I've come to accept that and am okay that my pet game (RQ 2nd ed) isn't included by what most people mean when they use the term. The fact that some things are included and others excluded when they're both from the 70s doesn't mean the term is broken, it means it's actually about something.
There, sticky rant over ...
But as far as the OP's laundry list goes, holes can be picked in a number of them. The "heroes not superheroes" thing?
The first gaming book I ever bought was D&D's first edition of Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. It was published in 1976. The volume attempted, in part, to solve a common issue in gaming circles of that day, and this paragraph in the foreword explains that:
"This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the 'Monty Hall' DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?"
Of course, we know what happened there: far from being deterred, the players aforementioned 40+ level characters chortled in delight, shouting "Whoa, the most powerful GODS only have 300 hit points? LET'S KILL 'EM AND TAKE THEIR STUFF!" And did.
:boohoo:
Quote from: NathanIW;846574What do you think about the Swords & Wizardry rules for jumping? ;)
Those are fine as well. You can't make rules for EVERYTHING. You'd go insane and trying results in stupid shit like there being different DCs for tumbling over even vs. uneven flagstones in 3.5ed.
The rules that S&W has are good rules. 3.5ed jumping rules are good. Lots of other 3.5ed rules are shit.
Quote from: Simlasa;846517I agree that signposts are very important... but I think there are lots of ways to do that besides predictable dungeon levels and monsters. If the orc lair has a lot of heads on posts outside and some of them are still recognizable as some seriously tough guys you met in a previous session... you might think twice about whether these are just your average pie-loving orcs.
That's not old school, though. That's building a story, around protagonists.
I think one of the most basic old school principles is
the world doesn't care. Your PC is not guaranteed to be a hero, and you don't get any special breaks. The setting keeps on going, regardless of what the PCs do. It doesn't change just to accommodate them, so the world won't contort to ensure that heads of monsters who somehow survived a previous encounter are in place to warn the PCs before they face an even tougher threat.
And I also find those intangible signals never translate well. I've seen it too many times -- a DM is sure they've (repeatedly) warned the players that the upcoming threat is out of their league or dangerous, but after everyone is killed the players are like "well, that came out of the blue."
And that's not the players' fault. Because it's not player skill, it's just miscommunication. The DM is the players' eyes, ears, and other senses. Flavor text is subjective, and trying and failing to convey a message in such an oblique manner is on the DM's head. It's roughly equivalent to "you forgot to say you were pulling up your pants, so you fall down".
On the other hand, dungeon level and monster type are fairly concrete and they're both tied to game stats (wandering monster tables by level, and the stat block, respectively). As long as the DM is consistent, they're reliable markers, and they don't rely on the players successfully deciphering what the DM is saying between the lines.
Quote from: NathanIW;846568I think there's a more common form of danger signal that shows up. A seriously deadly attack or effect that catches the players off guard and tells them they are out of their depth. Like if they go deep into a dungeon and the first creature they encounter reduces one of the characters to ash with a gout of fire. Character death can be a danger signal to the entire group of players.
Monsters that are nearly invincible to the player's attacks can also be a danger signal. A powerful attack bouncing off a good AC or a non-magical weapon proving useless against a creature can also be danger signals on the defensive side of things.
If you have kill off a PC, it can't be common.
But I think it's an excellent warning, that ties into monster type. Because that's the real threat in old school D&D -- the unknown. If you don't know what you're facing, it should be
fucking scary. Swords bouncing off a rat, or lanky green thing shredding a PC with claws and teeth?
That's awesome. The terror of the unknown, and encountering something new and wondrous (and terrifying).
But it only happens once. And after they run into their first troll, they'll know what they're facing the next time they seem something green, thin, shambly, and droopy-nosed in the distance. And that's part of the fun, too. Learning how the world works.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;846539But having every level be magically a set difficulty destroys it too.
Are you familiar with the wandering monster charts, by level?
Dungeon level isn't a perfect indicator. It's always possible to roll up a troll on the 3rd level of a dungeon. So deaths will happen. But it gives the players a tool they can use routinely to forestall death.
Quote from: Pat;846582That's not old school, though. That's building a story, around protagonists.
I think one of the most basic old school principles is the world doesn't care. Your PC is not guaranteed to be a hero, and you don't get any special breaks. The setting keeps on going, regardless of what the PCs do. It doesn't change just to accommodate them, so the world won't contort to ensure that heads of monsters who somehow survived a previous encounter are in place to warn the PCs before they face an even tougher threat.
I see your meaning and I agree... I left out the backstory of how the heads got there which was obvious to the Players when they encountered them. Basically a competing group of adventurers who'd already beaten them to the punch a few time earlier.
The heads would have been there regardless of whether the PCs went to the cave or not. Only at that cave, they're not quantum totems of warning.
I still prefer signals like that, as Player and GM, over assumptions about what level a monster is or how dangerous a level of a dungeon might be. Yeah, people miss them sometimes... in which case they might have to flee from a battle they can't win. I like it when that happens sometimes as well.
Quote from: Simlasa;846594I see your meaning and I agree... I left out the backstory of how the heads got there which was obvious to the Players when they encountered them. Basically a competing group of adventurers who'd already beaten them to the punch a few time earlier.
The heads would have been there regardless of whether the PCs went to the cave or not. Only at that cave, they're not quantum totems of warning.
I still prefer signals like that, as Player and GM, over assumptions about what level a monster is or how dangerous a level of a dungeon might be. Yeah, people miss them sometimes... in which case they might have to flee from a battle they can't win. I like it when that happens sometimes as well.
Yes, that's definitely a different approach. I'm okay if it comes up naturally, but I don't want to build it in, or rely on it.
I see level (dungeon and monster) as a dial that allows players to set the difficulty rating. It's up to them, and I want them to have that control because it means I don't have feed them a steady diet of appropriate challenges. And I don't want to do that, because it removes one way they can make decisions that matter.
Quote from: Pat;846612I see level (dungeon and monster) as a dial that allows players to set the difficulty rating.
I think it's still there even if I do stick in a puppy level... because deeper is further... further you're going to have to make your way back out of, possibly wounded and low on resources. Just like heading out of the city and out into the wilderness is accepting certain difficulties that you wouldn't have had if you'd stayed at home or on well-traveled roads.
Quote from: Pat;846582If you have kill off a PC, it can't be common.
Yeah. A sufficiently ferocious non lethal attack can also do.
QuoteBut I think it's an excellent warning, that ties into monster type. Because that's the real threat in old school D&D -- the unknown. If you don't know what you're facing, it should be fucking scary.
One thing I've been doing for quite some time is to not use any normal monsters. If I'm going to have something that's like an orc, I'll take a random mutation table from somewhere and apply a trait or two. To the point where the strange ends up being the centre of the description. For example, what about a skinless corpse floating an inch off the ground like it is hanging from an invisible noose. It floats rapidly towards you and only when it is near enough to strike does it look at you and reach out to grab you. No one is going to look back over 40 years of D&D and go, "that's a wight, break out the silver weapons."
Quote from: NathanIW;846564And yet people are consistently achieving the kind of play described in this thread as old school. Some have never stopped going back decades.
Yup! And as posts on this very site proves, they can do it with 5E.
I'm not saying it's impossible to capture a mood. Especially for experienced DMs, they could probably do it with most systems. It would not be particularly hard to run a game of Fate Accelerated with an old-school feel. Hell, when I played it we were fairly close - we removed Fate Points and played that if you were "invoking" (which we narrowed to strictly getting an advantage over them) then you got +1, +2 max if you did it twice. Remove Fate's signature lack of lethality by actually making stress levels kill you or inflict permanent injury that matters without the "knock out" stuff, and you're playing for real stakes.
Meanwhile I'm sure there's someone running Lamantations and fudging the die rolls or making poison do d6 damages rather than kill.
Quote from: RandallS;846503B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.
Yes.
Quote from: Pat;846582I think one of the most basic old school principles is the world doesn't care. Your PC is not guaranteed to be a hero, and you don't get any special breaks. The setting keeps on going, regardless of what the PCs do.
And this. So much this. Even when WotC returns to a sandboxy, site-based adventure model, there's an overriding premise that D&D has to be heroic and heroism means saving world.
Quote from: Ravenswing;846579
The first gaming book I ever bought was D&D's first edition of Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. It was published in 1976. The volume attempted, in part, to solve a common issue in gaming circles of that day, and this paragraph in the foreword explains that:
"This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the 'Monty Hall' DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?"
Of course, we know what happened there: far from being deterred, the players aforementioned 40+ level characters chortled in delight, shouting "Whoa, the most powerful GODS only have 300 hit points? LET'S KILL 'EM AND TAKE THEIR STUFF!" And did.
:boohoo:
This is also true. One of my issues with the old-school revival is the shameless revisionism that its advocates employ. It's as though power-gaming and Monty Haul campaigns never existed, instead of being so commonplace that Gygax tore his hair out trying to combat it. 30th level fighters with 15th level henchmen, armed with +5 vorpal blades mowing down fire giants by the dozen, while their magic-user buddy waltzed around protected by a cube of force, letting his army of ogres do most of his fighting. In fact, I'd say that style of play (which my friends and I called 'fakey' D&D) was the most common style that I encountered in 1980-83, at the crest of the game's popularity. It was damned awkward when two players showed up to the game who both had characters equipped with Thor's hammer. Read Day of the Dwarf from Dragon magazine (circa 1980) sometime, with the Cleric who has two golf-bags full of wands and staffs, a Paladin with seven holy swords, a gold dragon PC, and a PC who has a machine-gun. D&D was way more out-there than the OSR Taliban would have us believe.
Quote from: GreyICE;846754Yup! And as posts on this very site proves, they can do it with 5E.
Definitely. And I've enjoyed the article sseries on the topic as well.
QuoteI'm not saying it's impossible to capture a mood. Especially for experienced DMs, they could probably do it with most systems.
I don't think it's a mood thing. I think it's about actual concrete sstuff people are doing and not doing in real games. And you can have the approach with multiple moods, tones, themes, styles, whatever.
QuoteIt would not be particularly hard to run a game of Fate Accelerated with an old-school feel. Hell, when I played it we were fairly close - we removed Fate Points and played that if you were "invoking" (which we narrowed to strictly getting an advantage over them) then you got +1, +2 max if you did it twice. Remove Fate's signature lack of lethality by actually making stress levels kill you or inflict permanent injury that matters without the "knock out" stuff, and you're playing for real stakes.
Yep. All real things you did at the table to make the game how you wanted.
--
The biggest weakness of the term "old school" and its derivations like OSR is that it has come to exclude approaches to play that were around in the 70s. Just think about that for a second. An approach like RuneQuest's skills (they existed as house rules to D&D prior to being made into their own rules) or the kill the gods and take their stuff groups that Ravenswing mentioned are all present very, very early.
I used to say that any definition of old school that excludes stuff from as early as that is stupid. But that was me being stupid and not recognizing that definitions just describe how something is already being used in communication. When we talk about "old school" or OSR, it's okay that it excludes things that are old but are different than what those using the terms are interested in. It's about communication so people are on the same page and that's it.
Quote from: NathanIW;846771The biggest weakness of the term "old school" and its derivations like OSR is that it has come to exclude approaches to play that were around in the 70s. Just think about that for a second. An approach like RuneQuest's skills (they existed as house rules to D&D prior to being made into their own rules) or the kill the gods and take their stuff groups that Ravenswing mentioned are all present very, very early.
That's because the OSR arose out of frustration with modern play styles, in particular the style fostered by 3E D&D. So anything old that was different from 3E was championed, while anything old that was similar to 3E (and other popular modern games) was ignored or suppressed. It's a kind of political revisionism that's more about defining identity and differences than recognizing and acknowledging the truth.
I noticed a shift when 4e came out and suddenly all these OSR proponents were all suddenly okay with Pathfinder. It was hilarious.
Anyway, despite my favorite game from the 70s (RQ) not counting, I'm generally okay with the narrow definition for Old School or OSR because it is useful in immediately communicating what someone is talking about.
Quote from: NathanIW;846773I noticed a shift when 4e came out and suddenly all these OSR proponents were all suddenly okay with Pathfinder. It was hilarious.
I wasn't. Pathfinder has the exact same problems 3.x (or, for that matter, 2e with the Player's option stuff or 4e) does for me. Combat takes far, far longer than I have any interest in, system mastery is still all but required and characters take far too long to create.
Hell, from my limited experience, 5e combat still takes longer than I am willing to put up with. And while 5e requires less system mastery than any version of D&D since plain 2e and BECMI/RC, it still requires more than I want at my table -- which is usually filled with causal gamers who have near zero-interest in reading rulebooks, let alone studying them enough to master the mechanics.
Quote from: RandallS;846775I wasn't. Pathfinder has the exact same problems 3.x (or, for that matter, 2e with the Player's option stuff or 4e) does for me. Combat takes far, far longer than I have any interest in, system mastery is still all but required and characters take far too long to create.
Me neither. I just found it funny how what is essentially the same game suddenly got a lot more acceptable when it wasn't WotC publishing it. For those of us who were concerned about how it actually worked at the table, the "it's an underdog competing against big bad WotC" narrative was just silly.
QuoteHell, from my limited experience, 5e combat still takes longer than I am willing to put up with. And while 5e requires less system mastery than any version of D&D since plain 2e and BECMI/RC, it still requires more than I want at my table -- which is usually filled with causal gamers who have near zero-interest in reading rulebooks, let alone studying them enough to master the mechanics.
I think fast combat is likely a quality of old school gaming as well. I don't even shift game modes to combat mode anymore. I just describe what the monsters are doing, have the players describe what they do and resolve things in an order that makes sense.
Quote from: RandallS;846775I wasn't. Pathfinder has the exact same problems 3.x (or, for that matter, 2e with the Player's option stuff or 4e) does for me. Combat takes far, far longer than I have any interest in, system mastery is still all but required and characters take far too long to create.
I'd never claim Pathfinder is an OSR game but based on what I've experienced in our weekly group I can attest to it being run in an OSR manner... I have no 'rules mastery', I just say what I'm doing and the GM lets me know if I need to roll. He runs it as a sandbox and we've had our share of TPKs... new PCs roll up pretty fast (He's using Hero Lab). One guy at the table, our resident min-maxer and suspected cheat, occasionally grumbles that we're doing it wrong... that we should be playing like we're Navy Seals and grasping after every bonus we can get in combat... and we probably wouldn't make it through any official PF adventures as written... but the game he's describing doesn't sound like much fun and that's not how we play. Maybe that means we're not really playing Pathfinder, I don't know.
I admit it - I don't know what "OSR" means other than someone's concept of what they want to play.
As for the way my friends and I played back in the 70's, Point-buy was non-existent. Coming to a game with a "character concept" was non-existent.
You came to a game with no expectations except the pitch the GM gave. You role-played the character you rolled - that was a big part of the game. You character could die at any time - that was part of it. Getting to 5th level in D&D was doing well; 10th level was fantastic. And the GM was the final arbiter of the rules, although only bad ones changed these from session to session.
Quote from: BillDowns;846782You came to a game with no expectations except the pitch the GM gave. You role-played the character you rolled - that was a big part of the game. You character could die at any time - that was part of it. Getting to 5th level in D&D was doing well; 10th level was fantastic. And the GM was the final arbiter of the rules, although only bad ones changed these from session to session.
This is probably the best definition of old school I've read.
Quote from: Ravenswing;846576Old School: That which was standard practice (or what I thought to be "standard practice," or how people at my school gaming club played, anyway) when I discovered the hobby.
New School: Any way of doing things I encountered starting about 9-18 months later, most of which is crap.
Ancient History: Anything people did 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.
""Old School dates from 19XX until 20XX." - Translation: the date when either (a) the system I've always played went into a new edition or overhauled the setting or (b) I switched to playing this way cooler newer system.
""New School" dates from the explosion of indie games on the market" - Translation: it dates from when I picked my head up and noticed there were more game systems out there than I'd previously been aware of, especially when the Sunday afternoon gaming group wanted to check them out.
""New School" means a shift in focus to setting plot, as opposed to strictly character goals." - Translation: I've never particularly gamed in Tekumel, the Third Imperium, Glorantha or anything like that, but I'm sure they only involved dungeon crawls anyway.
Sorry, but damn near about everything the definitionists are trying to label "New School," someone was doing in the 1970s. Point buy? Check. Getting people out of the dungeons? Check. Storytelling? Check. Innovation? Check. Rules light? Hell, White Box D&D had that. Proliferation of new ideas? Christ on a crutch, Alarums & Excursions had heaps of them from 1975 on, and The Wild Hunt started shortly after that. Heaps of supplements and splatbooks? OD&D had those too. Indie games? Everyone, his sister and the family dog were churning out variants and homebrews like crazy.
Alright, I've given my take on what Old School/New School really is, but what I believe the serious advocates think it is is basic: first they make a decision 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.
Folks, you know something? I GM a game (GURPS) that's 25 years old. It didn't pioneer a whole lot; there weren't many core mechanics that no one had ever before tried. It's sure as hell not obsolete. It wasn't the first game I played, and I've tried dozens of others, from OD&D to homebrews to published systems to games just out in the last few years. I can GM with any play style I want with it. Nothing prevents me from allowing character play free rein, just the same way that nothing prevented me last year from hauling a 31 year old homebrew dungeon out of mothballs and refurbishing it for a nostalgia spin.
Fuck the labels. Someone in 1985 might have described it as "new school;" some of the posters in this topic would call it "old school." The distinctions are meaningless, they're very arbitrary, and I'm waiting for the first poster to explain why we need them at all. Go out, play the games you want to play, have fun doing it, and who in the bloody hell cares whether your school is old or new?
Sounds about right to me;).
Quote from: NathanIW;846778Me neither. I just found it funny how what is essentially the same game suddenly got a lot more acceptable when it wasn't WotC publishing it. For those of us who were concerned about how it actually worked at the table, the "it's an underdog competing against big bad WotC" narrative was just silly.
It's actually much more than that.
Maybe you weren't part of it, but you might remember the outcry that switching over from 3e to 3.5 caused? The whole "WoTC is evil because I have to buy my books all over again! WoTC SUX!" It was everywhere, and I admit I was part of that crowd annoyed that we'd be forced to 'rebuy' our books to 'keep up to date'.
A few years later, Paizo come around and DOES THE EXACT SAME THING! Even the fans called it '3.75'!
But instead of bitching and moaning about someone changing their game again and invalidating all their books (which Paizo, despite the original claims of backwards compatibility, did), these very same 'fans' praised Paizo, loved Paizo for doing it.
But if Wizards did it? I'm pretty sure people would have bitched about it, but caved in anyway.
I still find it immensely amusing.
On the whole PF vs. OSR thing: a good part of Pathfinder (or 3E) being accepted as 'more OSR' is that 4E redefined all the benchmarks for what wasn't old school - martial encounter powers, warlords, healing surges... It was a beautiful time where 3E fans and grognards were united in hatred, much like Americans and Russians suddenly cooperating against an invasion from Mars.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;84654616) The game is not about running a predefined, prewritten setting. A GM has to make the game and the setting his own, even if he does use "official" material (like that gorgeous Greyhawk map...), and bonus points if he builds it from scratch.
(I always had more respect for GMs that did that. Even if their maps were sketchy - they were theirs.)
I also respect a GM for doing that but I don't think it's easy to claim that as uniquely 'old' as in there were loads of predefined settings in the 'old' days.
Quote from: AsenRG;846792Sounds about right to me;).
Yup that's hit it on the head.
'Golden Age', 'Silver Age', 'Bronze Age', 'Iron Age' nonsense most of the time.
Quote from: tzunder;846915I also respect a GM for doing that but I don't think it's easy to claim that as uniquely 'old' as in there were loads of predefined settings in the 'old' days.
Mmmm, no. There was just three. The Judges Guild
Wilderlands Campaign Setting (1977), Blackmoor (1978) and
Empire of the Petal Throne (1975-76).
I probably would have bought and used any one of them, I did end up running quite a few games set in the Wilderlands in the late 70's/ early 80's, because buying one or two of the modules was affordable, However never did manage to get the complete campaign setting until 2004. It was just too big to buy all at once.
EoPT was not too large, the boxed set was however very expensive, and there was a limited 1st edition print run of 5,000 or so... So I never even saw that in the old days, only heard stories and would sit in on games at GhengisCon. Once again was unable to buy it, until Lou Zocchi brought several boxes containing the Gamescience Tekumel sourcebook
Swords & Glory, with him to Origins in 2003, where I picked up a copy at this booth.
TSR didn't even have a campaign setting until 1980 when the Mystara setting was released for 0D&D and Greyhawk was released for AD&D.
Aside from a few games set in the Wilderlands, all my wilderness campaign games from 1977-1980 were home brewed.
At first we just made up whatever suited us for our maps, adding inspirations and ideas from SF&F books that we had read. There were some early articles that came out in the Strategic Review and Dragon magazine that helped us with campaign world generation, and were very influential for me when I designed my fantasy campaign worlds.
Originally published in
Dragon Magazine #8,
The Development of Towns in D&D by
Tony Watson was one inspiring article, that later made it into the Best of Dragon, Vol I.
Another early article that got plenty of use was
Designing for Unique Wilderness Encounters by
Daniel Clifton from
Dragon Magazine #10.
Two other articles gave me the idea to make my own random generation tables for wilderness campaigns was Jim Ward's
Deserted Cities of Mars which first appeared in the
Strategic Review Vol 1, Issue 3 (1975) , and later
Campaign Law (1984) from Iron Crown Enterprises.
While I did not use the 1e DMG (1980) for much early on, I did make extensive use of the random dungeon and wilderness generation tables located in the back of the book for my homebrew campaigns throughout the 80's and designed many charts and tables for random campaign generation.
So, no. There really was not much available in the
'old days' and we spent lots of time creating our own sandbox campaign worlds, because there was nothing else available.
When campaign settings finally did become available in the early to mid 80's we very rarely bought it. It had to be really good to compete with what we had already created on our own...
opps, I almost forgot
Glorantha, which was
Runequest's default campaign setting. First time I saw that was when it was released at
GhengisCon I in 1979...
Chaosium had this other supplement though with a duck and a sword artwork on it that looked so completely retarded, that I shied away from it, and didn't buy a copy of Runequest until 1987 or so. Turned out to be a tremendously good game system, and I really liked the Fantasy Europe campaign setting along with the really goo artwork that came with the
Avalon Hill boxed set. Never did dig the
Glorantha campaign setting, always thought the authors there were trying to be too smart and were secretly insulting their gaming audience by having them play intelligent pigs, and ducks, and whatnot.
That was one case where the terrible early artwork pushed me away from what was otherwise a really great gaming system. ...And Runequest included an awesome random campaign generation section.
Quote from: tzunder;846917'Golden Age', 'Silver Age', 'Bronze Age', 'Iron Age' nonsense most of the time.
Yep, absolutely. Unless some widely-agreed upon standard takes hold in a field (like those terms with comic books), it's widely subjective, and it matters a lot where you stood.
I remember reading a column in the
Hockey News from Joe Falls, a bunch of years back, in which he bemoaned modern hockey, and pronounced that the only
good hockey ever played was in the 1940s and 50s. Well, no kidding, Joe, thought I. He was a Detroit sports writer for nearly 50 years, the Detroit Red Wings won the Stanley Cup or was a finalist eleven of those twenty years, and at the time he wrote that column, the Wings had only four winning seasons in the previous quarter-century. Of course he found his own era lacking in comparison with the glorious times of old. It's human nature. (Me, a Bostonian of a younger generation, when the Boston Bruins blew chunks for most of the 1960s but were at the top of the heap in the 1970s, I had a different take on it.)
And the same thing applies to us. The pull isn't to a set of rules or a style of gaming: it's to that wonderful time, for a certain cross-section of grognards, where we'd clutch scrawled sheets and polydice, spending night after night playing that wonderful game.
Quote from: GameDaddy;846924Mmmm, no. There was just three. The Judges Guild Wilderlands Campaign Setting (1977), Blackmoor (1978) and Empire of the Petal Throne (1975-76).
Which brings us back to the question of what 'old' means. Tegel Manor was published in 1977. Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and the rest of the G and D series, along with Tomb of Horrors were published in 1978. In Search of the Unknown, Keep on the Borderlands, White Plume Mountain, and Village of Hommlet were published in 1979. A bunch more were published by TSR and Judges Guild in 1980. They sold many tens of thousands of copies.
Outside D&D, the Spinward Marches for Traveller was published in 1979. I wasn't a big Traveller guy, but the guys I knew who were into it definitely used that book (as well as their own material).
So it's safe to say that using pre-made material (though not necessarily using it exclusively) was already very widespread by 1979. For people who weren't connected to the college or wargaming scene - and that was a large and growing proportion of players once the Holmes boxed set was published - published adventures were pretty much the only exposure into what D&D and other RPGs were actually about. That doesn't mean they only used published adventures - given the low number of modules and their level spread, that wasn't practical.
So some published and some home-brew was probably the case for most groups by the time of the Holmes boxed set. If by 'old-school' people mean only OD&D, then they should probably be explicit about that.
Matt Finch's primer is interesting and describes to me what I thought of (circa 1980) as the "original D&D" games, where people weren't even really playing a rule set, because there was no good solid rule set, so they just used what little printed material there was as inspiration, and made up most or all of the rest.
My experience with D&D was circa 1980 5th grade for me. I bought the white box collector's edition D&D set, which seemed amazingly incoherent, incomplete, and practically unusable to me. Attempts to use it just led to rants about how it didn't make sense. Other kids bought the AD&D books and tried playing those, but they weren't quite up to really understanding all of the rules or knowing what to do with the holes in the rules or their knowledge, and made a lot of stuff up and spread their inventions as if they were accurate. It was semi-playable if/when people agreed who was DM and they had a dungeon, but seemed highly flawed, particularly because players started lying about what they'd achieved and looted in play, and were all bluffing and insisting they really had level 10-100 characters with "5-button swords" etc, in an escalating imaginary arms race that didn't really involve playing a game and almost all of them stopped pretending they played D&D by 6th grade.
What I, my dad and my friends chose to actually play, was The Fantasy Trip, which we made campaign worlds for and played through about 10th-11th grade, when we started making up detailed house rules for more advanced tactical combat, and then switched to GURPS when it first appeared, because it was essentially what we had been trying to create with our house rules ("Mega-Detailed TFT") only far more playable and without us having to design rules instead of play. Also, it was more or less compatible with TFT, so I could and did adapt my existing TFT campaigns to use GURPS.
But I do have my own sense of what Old-School is, but it's Old-School TFT, which is still a sentimental favorite, and is quite unlike what Matt Flinch outlined, largely because my bad experiences with D&D led me to look at it as what I didn't want.
My flavor of Old School TFT, if expressed like Flinch's list, and in contrast to it, is more like this:
1) There are good mostly-realistic rules for most things, but GM discretion can cover everything else when needed.
2) Character abilities define how competent characters are, and the rules show how good they are at most tasks. These rules involve three basic attributes (ST, DX, IQ), IQ governs what talents and skills you can have, ST governs what equipment you can carry and use, and all your capacities and chances to succeed are based on these in a logical realistic way.
2b) However, as long as players stay in-character, they can come up with clever schemes and techniques and try to do things that don't bypass or break the rules or their logic.
3) PCs generally start at "above average" level (32 points vs. 30 average), and have the potential to become much more capable, if they somehow manage to survive and earn tons of experience points, train new talents, or spells, etc. But no one has the power of a comic book superhero. Though there are some pretty powerful magic items.
4) Game balance exists in that most all characters use the same system, have a comparable number of points, and the combat system is dangerous for everyone, and rewards experience earned in play, and using good tactics. And yes, the world doesn't magically warp and scale to match PC power levels... although the more trouble you get into, the more powerful people may be involved. Even a hero who survived ten or even twenty years of adventuring still isn't going to be inherently super-powerful and able to just overpower dragons or dozens of men... unless he does what he did to survive that long, which would be to use friends, tactics, magic, and/or avoid getting into deadly situations.
And I'd add:
5) Almost every combat will involve laying out a tactical hex map and counters, and using all of the relevant rules from Advanced Melee. The tactical combat system is the foundation of the game, and is often the focus of most of the gameplay. Much of the fun of play is deciding exactly how to maneuver, which weapons to use in which way against which targets, and watching the mayhem unfold, with your characters' lives and limbs on the line.
6) Practically every combat is dangerous and has meaningful consequences. People can take about 7-15 points of damage, and weapons average 3-11 per hit, with occasional double- and triple-damage results, and rules for losing body parts.
7) There are no healing spells. Medicine can heal 2-3 points. Healing potions are rare, heal 1 point of damage each, and have a market value, when available, of $100. Resting up from serious injuries takes more than a week of bed rest. So, yeah, it's really best if you take that combat seriously.
8) Everything you own is written down and has a location in the game world. We use the encumbrance rules, which require you to list where/how you carry everything on your person, and which have effects in play. Carrying stuff and wearing armor slows you down and makes you less agile, which have serious effects on ... combat (q.v. above).
Quote from: NathanIW;846564In old school games the referee describes a situation and the players describe what their characters do in response to that situation. The referee uses the rules and describes the results. This creates a new situation that the players then respond to. In an ongoing circuit.
Yeah, people forget that the term referee or game master wasn't some sort of douchebag way to put the GM on a higher plane than other players; it as a way recognize that one player was responsible for administering the rules of the game.
And yet there are people on TBP today arguing that D&D players have always taken a mechanics-first approach to play. I don't know how much of that is impenetrable ignorance and how much is outright trolling.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;846797Maybe you weren't part of it, but you might remember the outcry that switching over from 3e to 3.5 caused? The whole "WoTC is evil because I have to buy my books all over again! WoTC SUX!" It was everywhere, and I admit I was part of that crowd annoyed that we'd be forced to 'rebuy' our books to 'keep up to date'.
A few years later, Paizo come around and DOES THE EXACT SAME THING! Even the fans called it '3.75'!
But instead of bitching and moaning about someone changing their game again and invalidating all their books (which Paizo, despite the original claims of backwards compatibility, did), these very same 'fans' praised Paizo, loved Paizo for doing it.
But if Wizards did it? I'm pretty sure people would have bitched about it, but caved in anyway.
Also, see: 4E to 4E Essentials nerdfury, with 13th Age standing in for Pathfinder.
Quote from: Ravenswing;846925
And the same thing applies to us. The pull isn't to a set of rules or a style of gaming: it's to that wonderful time, for a certain cross-section of grognards, where we'd clutch scrawled sheets and polydice, spending night after night playing that wonderful game.
Why this is old school, nor am I out of it.
Think'st thou that I who saw the face of Gygax,
And tasted the eternal joys of OD&D,
Am not enrolled forevermore in old school,
In seeking always that everlasting bliss?
(With apologies to Christopher Marlowe and the OSR. :) )
Quote from: Ravenswing;846925Yep, absolutely. Unless some widely-agreed upon standard takes hold in a field (like those terms with comic books), it's widely subjective, and it matters a lot where you stood.
I remember reading a column in the Hockey News from Joe Falls, a bunch of years back, in which he bemoaned modern hockey, and pronounced that the only good hockey ever played was in the 1940s and 50s. Well, no kidding, Joe, thought I. He was a Detroit sports writer for nearly 50 years, the Detroit Red Wings won the Stanley Cup or was a finalist eleven of those twenty years, and at the time he wrote that column, the Wings had only four winning seasons in the previous quarter-century. Of course he found his own era lacking in comparison with the glorious times of old. It's human nature. (Me, a Bostonian of a younger generation, when the Boston Bruins blew chunks for most of the 1960s but were at the top of the heap in the 1970s, I had a different take on it.)
And the same thing applies to us. The pull isn't to a set of rules or a style of gaming: it's to that wonderful time, for a certain cross-section of grognards, where we'd clutch scrawled sheets and polydice, spending night after night playing that wonderful game.
While I think your definition is pretty much "how it's used", I don't think you can generalise to "old school not existing" in other areas of life. In fact, it exists even in RPGs, to a degree (the right way is, of course, the way I'm using it, it's just that all those people that are using it wrong muddy the waters:p:D!)
But, back to the question of "old school", I find that it means (not only regarding RPGs):
A greater emphasis on improvising.
A greater emphasis on practicality instead of showmanship.
A greater reliance on hierarchic relationships.
Less importance being attributed to feelings and not hurting them.
Systems in general being less codified.
Granted, I have no idea whether this holds true in American football, but in several areas I can think of, it is true. Seems to be true in RPGs as well:).
Well, at least it seems to fit my impression of what the OSR has as far as shared values are concerned;).
(nods to Skarg) I was, in my own time, a devoted TFT GM, and shifted to GURPS largely out of its much greater granularity and its divorcing of the direct link between XP and stats. But when I started GMing again in 2003 after a few years' hiatus, I very nearly went back to it. It's still a perfectly sound, clean system.
To me, the biggest distinction that makes sense is that "Old School" is firmly wedded to the "Free Kriegspiel" mindset. The world is the referee's, the referee has total decision making power over everything that happens, and the rules are merely a set of notes to ease the referee's decision making.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_%28wargame%29
I COULD simply adjudicate every combat using my judgement, but I use dice and the OD&D hit chart because it's easier for me.
Etc.
Quote from: Haffrung;846983Also, see: 4E to 4E Essentials nerdfury, with 13th Age standing in for Pathfinder.
True enough, but those two games are bigger changes than 3e to 3.5 to Pathfinder. Essentials was like the old D&D to AD&D that TSR tried and failed. And 13th Age is more to 4e, than 3e, yes?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847067To me, the biggest distinction that makes sense is that "Old School" is firmly wedded to the "Free Kriegspiel" mindset. The world is the referee's, the referee has total decision making power over everything that happens, and the rules are merely a set of notes to ease the referee's decision making.
Gaming like it's 1876.
One of the hardest things I've had to unlearn is the idea that the dice or rules give something legitimacy. That something arrived at because a die was rolled is somehow more ironclad than something the referee decides. What really helped has been a progressive moving of more and more of the system into the black box leaving more and more actual description left as the only real basis to make decisions upon.
Another thing I do when I play is have my character sheet put away inside a binder or folder (or just upside down) and only pull it out when I need it. I just keep my notes about the descriptions, items we have, people we know etc., out all the time.
I still enjoy playing the occasional game where the system is there to be used by all participants, but I'm finding everything is so much slower and less happens than when you just trust the referee to apply it as needed and concentrate on description. The exception to this would be story-game/rpg hybrids where every player is also a referee to a degree. Lots can happen very rapidly in those games, but they don't give the same experience of being a persona navigating a described environment. They're a different sort of beast.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;847071True enough, but those two games are bigger changes than 3e to 3.5 to Pathfinder. Essentials was like the old D&D to AD&D that TSR tried and failed. And 13th Age is more to 4e, than 3e, yes?
Essentials is seamlessly compatible with standard 4E. Nothing changed in the core rules. Classes and published material from the two lines can be used interchangeably without any conversion. There's a far greater difference between B/X D&D and AD&D, for example. And yet people used those two systems almost interchangeably, and I recall no nerdfury aimed at TSR over the introduction of the B/X stream.
The Essentials furor shows just how toxic D&D forum culture had become, and how fiercely even the tiniest mechanical variations were resented as an almost personal affront - at least by the system-wonks who were some of 4E's most vocal supporters.
Quote from: NathanIW;847096Gaming like it's 1876.
One of the hardest things I've had to unlearn is the idea that the dice or rules give something legitimacy. That something arrived at because a die was rolled is somehow more ironclad than something the referee decides. What really helped has been a progressive moving of more and more of the system into the black box leaving more and more actual description left as the only real basis to make decisions upon.
That's one reason OD&D spread like wildfire. "Sit down and Al will help you roll a character" and five minutes later that person is playing. "Don't worry about the rules, just tell me what you want to do."
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847176That's one reason OD&D spread like wildfire. "Sit down and Al will help you roll a character" and five minutes later that person is playing. "Don't worry about the rules, just tell me what you want to do."
Yeah, sometimes I feel this is one of the reasons why RPGs aren't more popular today. I mean, would I ever read 200 pages of rules for any other game?
Quote from: Eric Diaz;847194Yeah, sometimes I feel this is one of the reasons why RPGs aren't more popular today. I mean, would I ever read 200 pages of rules for any other game?
When I was younger I loved reading big thick rpg books. Now, after having played a bunch of different systems with wildly varying amounts of rules crunch, I have concluded that large overblown rulebooks do not add any appreciable extra fun to the play experience. I can have just as much or more fun playing with a 64 page rulebook like B/X than with a huge tome full of bells & whistles such as Pathfinder.
The people I'm playing with are WAY more important to contributing to a fun time than a rulebook.
Actually what this discussion always shows is how much the definitions shifts dependent on what you mean by 'old'.
It also shows that many 'indy' games share characteristics with 'osr', light rules, no universality, quirky mechanics. Others do not.
The only big thing I see between a lot of modern 'indy' games and a lot of 'OSR' advocate is the role of GM as 'auteur' and final arbiter, as opposed to a shared responsibility in many more co-operative games. FATE can be run in a very top down, the GM says kind of way, Aspects or no.
But that's not truly an 'old' versus 'new' thing. One can play Traveller as a shared responsibility game, or run it as an auteur GM. In truth most groups lie in the middle and adjust as personnel and people change.
Auteur versus Co-operative is an interesting axis and a lot of OSR advocates 'seem' to prefer the former, but I am not sure you can parse that from the rulesets or even the style of play.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847176That's one reason OD&D spread like wildfire. "Sit down and Al will help you roll a character" and five minutes later that person is playing. "Don't worry about the rules, just tell me what you want to do."
Totally agree, and we see that with the explosion of light accessible games from the rebirth of OSR to the indy games with one characteristic and one mechanism.
In truth, D&D 5e is a very quick game to sit down, roll up, and play as well.
Ditto 13th Age, you only really need to know 3 things in that system, combat and how your character race and class work. in 5e you also need to understand magic.
But you want real speed, FAE, now that's fast.
Quote from: tzunder;847210Totally agree, and we see that with the explosion of light accessible games from the rebirth of OSR to the indy games with one characteristic and one mechanism.
In truth, D&D 5e is a very quick game to sit down, roll up, and play as well.
Ditto 13th Age, you only really need to know 3 things in that system, combat and how your character race and class work. in 5e you also need to understand magic.
But you want real speed, FAE, now that's fast.
FAE is, in turn, way too slow compared to The Sundered Land (http://nightskygames.com/welcome/game/TheSunderedLand) which is also "don't worry about the rules":).
Then again, I play even games like GURPS in "don't worry about the rules" mode. I had to, because I regularly have beginners at the table;).
I think part of the problem with defining "old-school" games themselves, is that its different to to different people. Not to mention ever expanding. To people that started playing with B/X, yeah, that's old school. People that started playing 4e, 3.5 would be old school.
There as many Old Schools as there are players.
I have been playing for 35 years and self taught from blue book with no one else to watch or lean from.
My games have always been
i) character driven - PCs need to feel like they fit in the world they need in game motivations and hooks. Looking for treasure "because" is weak sauce
ii) PCs are special - you want to give me a page of background on your PC fantastic I will incorporate it as that helps me make the world more real
iii) Tracking resources is pretty tedious
iv) NPCs have plots the game evolves through PCs interacting with these plots
v) Dungeons really don't make a lot of sense as presented in D&D. Put more thought into why and how not just what and where.
vi) Big bunches of hirelings don't make sense. They don't fit the types of literature I want my games to feel like and if the PCs are special because they dare to take risks and so they have classes and powers, then how come they persuaded 20 normal blokes to come along as well in exchange for a couple of gold coins.
Now none of that seems to match the "old School" being touted here but at least in the UK there aren't many Older Schools.....
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.
2) Player Skill, not Character Skill. You don't roll find or disarm traps, you describe it.
3) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).
4) 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.
Generally yes to all of these. However, with 3 I think there could be room for games where the PCs get to 'superhero' level. Never at the beginning, though. Even so, there can be settings where the rest of the world is generally low-powered, so that even name-level dudes seem amazing when they get there (Albion is a lot like that). Or settings where by the time PCs get to higher levels they will be quite epic and the setting is meant to reflect it (Arrows of Indra is like that).
QuoteSome things I find important:
5) Starting characters aren't special. They don't have elaborate backgrounds or many special abilities.
I'd generally agree too, however, I think the more important thing is that what you are at the start is not your choice. It's not about buying the right feats or spending points on background perks. If you have something special or are something special it's because you were lucky on random rolls.
For example, both in Albion and Arrows, a PC could theoretically get to start out at lv.1 as an impoverished peasant, or start out as a really well-connected noble with comparatively stupid amounts of resources. But it should be about the luck of the dice.
Quote6) Resource management is important. You shouldn't be handwaving money, encumbrance, torches etc.
7) 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.
Yes and DEFINITELY yes.
Quote from: Pat;846495A few more common characteristics.
8) The main area of exploration is multi-level dungeons. Secondarily, wilderness hex crawls.
I don't agree that this is essential. My games tend to feature wilderness travel, roleplay/intrigue with NPCs or NPC-factions, and dungeon crawling (plus, in Albion, warfare and its consequences) in about equal measure.
Quote from: jibbajibba;847318v) Dungeons really don't make a lot of sense as presented in D&D. Put more thought into why and how not just what and where.
vi) Big bunches of hirelings don't make sense. They don't fit the types of literature I want my games to feel like and if the PCs are special because they dare to take risks and so they have classes and powers, then how come they persuaded 20 normal blokes to come along as well in exchange for a couple of gold coins.
To me, the acceptance of these two elements without kvetching over realism is a fundamental element of "old school" rpging. As soon as you try to explain or rationalize "dungeon ecology" you start moving away from old school style of play. As well, efforts to replicate any particular literary narrative in the game also moves away from OS play...
I tend to think that wrt rpgs, people generally use "old school" to reference a time as much as a style - the mid 70s to early 80s. I don't think very many people refer to the early 90s or 2000s when they talk of old school rpgs...
Quote from: RPGPundit;847853I don't agree that this is essential. My games tend to feature wilderness travel, roleplay/intrigue with NPCs or NPC-factions, and dungeon crawling (plus, in Albion, warfare and its consequences) in about equal measure.
it may not be essential, but it's certainly a quality of old school play afaic...the dungeon is pretty fundamental.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;847864it may not be essential, but it's certainly a quality of old school play afaic...the dungeon is pretty fundamental.
Hhrrrm? I almost don't use Dungeons at all.
The majority of game play in my Fantasy games is wilderness survival adventures, followed closely by urban intrigue adventures... Next most popular adventure type is nautical adventures. Dungeoneering comes in a distant sixth in popularity, as exploring ancient ruins occurs more frequently and most of the ancient ruins don't have a dungeon. Dungeoneering is even less common than exploring natural caves and caverns IMC.
Dungeons are one of the most expensive things in the game for NPCs or Players to build and maintain.
Quote from: RPGPundit;847836Generally yes to all of these. However, with 3 I think there could be room for games where the PCs get to 'superhero' level. Never at the beginning, though. Even so, there can be settings where the rest of the world is generally low-powered, so that even name-level dudes seem amazing when they get there (Albion is a lot like that). Or settings where by the time PCs get to higher levels they will be quite epic and the setting is meant to reflect it (Arrows of Indra is like that).
I'd generally agree too, however, I think the more important thing is that what you are at the start is not your choice. It's not about buying the right feats or spending points on background perks. If you have something special or are something special it's because you were lucky on random rolls.
For example, both in Albion and Arrows, a PC could theoretically get to start out at lv.1 as an impoverished peasant, or start out as a really well-connected noble with comparatively stupid amounts of resources. But it should be about the luck of the dice.
Yes and DEFINITELY yes.
The best thing about this characteristics, for me, is that most of theses things combine into a whole "your character is what you do at the table", or "the story is what happens at the table" mindset, instead of the character creation mini-game that might become more important than what you choose as a character.
Which is why I agree with you that randomness works better for character creation in OS.
I also agree you can become a superhero, eventually, but you have to work hard and survive to get there. Even if you start out as a rich noble, that isn't necessarily so special: it doesn't allow you to be the best possible knight or anything like that. Sure, you have a big fief, but many lords ruled this fief before you and most were forgotten. There are hundreds of lords around that are never ever mentioned in the game, and so on.
Maybe it boils down to "you start the game as an extra, and its up to you to become the protagonist".
Games such as DW and 13th age (to mention two games I enjoy) are opposite to old school because of that: your character is special from the start, and making him special is a part of character creation. So you must have some safeguards to avoid dying by accident, such as lots of HP.
Quote from: GameDaddy;847867Hhrrrm? I almost don't use Dungeons at all.
"Old school" is a big tent. Nothing in this thread should be take as prescriptive.
Dungeons are old school.
Very old school. Very close to heart and core and origin of the term. But lacking them? That doesn't mean you're cast out. There's no one single defining characteristic anyone can point to and say "if you don't have
this, you're not old school".
Quote from: GameDaddy;847867Hhrrrm? I almost don't use Dungeons at all.
The majority of game play in my Fantasy games is wilderness survival adventures, followed closely by urban intrigue adventures... Next most popular adventure type is nautical adventures. Dungeoneering comes in a distant sixth in popularity, as exploring ancient ruins occurs more frequently and most of the ancient ruins don't have a dungeon. Dungeoneering is even less common than exploring natural caves and caverns IMC.
Dungeons are one of the most expensive things in the game for NPCs or Players to build and maintain.
Well, I'm sure you will agree that dungeons are a big part of the history of original D&D won't you? I mean it's great that your campaign doesn't have them much, but what percentage of campaigns would you say do feature them? I'd wager something above 90%? Pretty much all of the published adventures from the time had them...we're not likely to find a definition that is 100% applicable.
And even when we move above ground to wilderness areas, they are often handles pretty similarly to dungeons.
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
My view is that old school is subjective and there has been an old school renaissance reviving interest in tabletop RPGs from all eras especially the 70s and early 80s. That this revolution is enabled by the internet and technology like PDFs and print on demand.
In conjunction with this there is a Old School Renaissance focused on playing, promoting, and publishing for classic edition of D&D along with whatever thing that happens to interest people involved.
The osr (all small letters) is not the same as the OSR (all caps). The OSR is a subset, the largest subset mind you, of the osr.
The term OSR is first and foremost is an organic marketing terms. Somebody that people who were playing, publishing, and publicizing older edition. I was one of the people who started using it when it gained traction. I used because my readers understood what it meant and it was easier to type than having to say "all those playing, promoting, and publishing for classic D&D." all the time.
What it never meant that the individuals thought that other older games weren't old school. From the get it go and periodically the title Old School Renaissance generated controversy. For my part, I just like it to describe what I do. Also I knew that due to the widespread use of the OGL that it was going to go in all kinds of direction. And as it turned out I was right.
The answer what old school doesn't and does matter. Everything niche is experiencing a renaissance thanks to the internet. Where it does matter is people get nostalgic so that always a factor. It rarely the only reason that a niche endures but it is a factor.
If I have a criticism is of those who criticize others with narrow interests. If there a group of people who like only 1st edition AD&D great! With the internet and technology rules of gatekeeping have been smashed all to bits and we are in new territory. It just that easy for small groups to split off and do their own thing.
What has happened is an ever-shifting kaleidoscope of alliances, partnerships, and relationship to get projects done. I believe the Pundit has worked with three publishers on three projects. Zack is working with James Raggi today, and tommorow the two could working with completely different people to get stuff done.
In the part of the OSR I am involved people are always trading art for cartography, layout for editing and so on. It is an utopia for some and hellish for others. Some people need structure to be creative while others thrive. But as time goes on the OSR developed established publishers and promoters as well as guys still going at it alone.
Quote from: RPGPundit;847853I don't agree that this is essential. My games tend to feature wilderness travel, roleplay/intrigue with NPCs or NPC-factions, and dungeon crawling (plus, in Albion, warfare and its consequences) in about equal measure.
Maybe your game isn't 100% old school? To me it seems there are a lot of old school influences, but also provides a depth that reminds me more of games like Harnmaster, Pendragon or Ars Magica. Those wouldn't qualify as old school games in my book.
Don't see this as criticism btw. I mean it as a compliment. It seems like you take the best of both worlds.
Btw I see old school games as focused in design, broad in scale, but also a bit shallow in experience. For example with a dungeon crawler it is crystal clear what you are supposed to do (kick in door, kill monsters, loot the room), it is broad in scale (large maps, big hexcrawls), but it can be a bit shallow (more of the same).
New school games are usually very thematic, more in depth, but unfocused in design. Usually providing a good read, having neat ideas, but it can be a little unclear about what you are actually supposed to do in the game.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;847863To me, the acceptance of these two elements without kvetching over realism is a fundamental element of "old school" rpging. As soon as you try to explain or rationalize "dungeon ecology" you start moving away from old school style of play. As well, efforts to replicate any particular literary narrative in the game also moves away from OS play...
I tend to think that wrt rpgs, people generally use "old school" to reference a time as much as a style - the mid 70s to early 80s. I don't think very many people refer to the early 90s or 2000s when they talk of old school rpgs...
My Point it I was playing this way in 1980 so what does Old School mean if it doesn't apply to the Old games I used to play when I was at School..... :)
Changes to AD&D that eventually led to the increased focus on role playing over gaming by 2e were already in place in the hobby from before the DMG was published.
The increasing importance of the roleplay bit was what undermines the dungeon and teams of hirelings and makes me want to play a game that feels like a Conan adventure or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser or Jack of Shadows or Dying Earth. Surely that desire goes back to the very origins of the hobby in the first place otherwise why personalise your army units and take on individual roles, just stick with wargaming and Chainmail.
Quote from: RandallS;846503I pretty much agree with the points in the first post. Four additional very important "old school" points for me are:
A) Combat is fast and fairly abstract. While combat happens a lot in most old school games, it is not time-consuming nor is it intended to be the most interesting part of the session. Minis/pieces and battlemats can be used if the GM wants but they are never required.
B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
C) The rules are merely guidelines for the GM. The rules are not intended or designed to protect players from a "bad" GM. Players can and should, of course, not play with a GM they consider bad.
D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.
Correct in every particular.
Quote from: jibbajibba;847990My Point it I was playing this way in 1980 so what does Old School mean if it doesn't apply to the Old games I used to play when I was at School..... :)
...perhaps it means the way you played isn't the way the majority of people were playing back then and isn't what people generally mean by "old school." :idunno: It's actually not even a requirement that the term relates to how "most" people played. It could refer specifically to the way the designers ran their campaigns and maybe hardly anyone else played that way.
Again, terms like this very rarely are 100% applicable.
There seems to be a resentment at times from some folks when it comes to the term "old school." It's like the term refers to a special club and they don't like feeling like they aren't in the club so they try to expand the definition enough to include them.
Hmm, well in my TFT campaign that started in 1980, I had some "dungeons" (Labyrinths in TFT), but at least by 1982 I was interested in where they had come from, why they were there, and what anyone/anything was doing living in them, and was thinking up reasons or retcons for the ones I'd just put there, which started to seem more and more problematic if the reasons didn't make sense. They could be mysterious and bizarre, as long as there was a reason somehow. By 1985, the reasons were actually starting to get pretty interesting.
There aren't many published dungeons for TFT, but I think pretty much all of the published dungeons have some sort of at least semi-sensible actual reasons for existing. The most elaborate one and about the only one Metagaming actually published as a GM adventure module, Tollenkar's Lair, is actually quite consistent and interestingly detailed in ways that make sense. There's a reason for pretty much everything being where it is, notes about what will happen if/when players disrupt it and how the various groups will respond to intrusion, and about how the magic and stuff is actually there to be used by the residents, not just there to be hauled away.
Oh, and I guess I didn't think much about original point 8), that old school games aren't oriented around stories in advance, which yeah, our GMs might have some ideas about what would tend to happen for a session or in future or what was going on in the world, but definitely the game was about having free agents in that world and seeing what happened and whether they'd die (more like, who would die) or lose stuff or profit. I am still of the mind that I'm not very interested in playing in games where I'm just an actor in a scripted plot thought up in advance by the GM. The most fun I've seen in RPGs is when players do cool unexpected things and what happens during play determines what happens. If I want to listen to someone's pre-made story, I'd rather just hear them tell it to me, or watch a play or read a book or something.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;848035...perhaps it means the way you played isn't the way the majority of people were playing back then and isn't what people generally mean by "old school." :idunno:
It's a term meant to evoke a certain play style, the may or may not have existed, relying on terminology and common misconceptions of how games were played 'back in the day'. None of which actually did exist, outside of specific instances of small groups in which before the advent of the internet, in which they believed was the way everyone played.
In fact, I'd posit that most of the 'Old School' play style only happened to a small, if not, miniscule group of localized gamers.
However, this does not mean that these play styles are bad. In fact, some are inspired, and have inspired a lot of 'modern' gaming styles. Others are just 'different' enough to be enjoyable in their own right.
But none of them should be considered indicative of 'how the game was played' because frankly, there was no unified way. Outside of not being able to 'think outside the box'.
I think there is something to be said for the "GM" as a Referee. His main responsibility, after creating (or buying) a scenario, setting, adventure, etc, is to be FAIR. Not to fight against the players, or saving their characters when they do something stupid.
It is a very different mindset than the one who puts PCs as protagonists with lots of plot armor, and forces the GM to be responsible for their well-being.
And IMO no old-school Referee is a "storyteller" of any kind.
This is why I think improvisation when creating places, monsters, etc, is not too faithful to OS play. The Referee should create the dungeon (or random encounters table, etc) before the game, and improvise only when dealing with rulings, crazy stunts done by the PCs, etc, but not "ok, this fight is too easy, a few more goblins appear...", etc.
Once I created an impressive "honor guard" NPC and a PC destroyed him with a single good roll. Last sessions, two henchmen almost killed one of the PCs. This unpredictability is great for me.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;848154I think there is something to be said for the "GM" as a Referee. His main responsibility, after creating (or buying) a scenario, setting, adventure, etc, is to be FAIR. Not to fight against the players, or saving their characters when they do something stupid.
No different than how a lot of people play now.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;848154And IMO no old-school Referee is a "storyteller" of any kind.
Even those that did want to tell a story back in say, '82? Or is that too New School for you?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;848156Even those that did want to tell a story back in say, '82? Or is that too New School for you?
One thing I had to get over was this idea that what people mean by old school or OSR must include all things from the early days of the hobby. I thought it was ridiculous that some ideas present in games published in the 70s would be excluded.
Now I see that it's actually about today. When people talk about OSR or old school in relation to RPGs they don't mean "stuff present in the first decade of the hobby." Instead they mean a very specific approach to play that actually excludes elements that show up very early in the history of RPGs.
It's not a historical categorization where examples to the contrary prove it wrong, it's about an identifiable approach and games and ideas produced
now that align with that approach.
--
For anyone who insists that a definition of old school that excludes ideas present in the 1970s is useless (as I used to) then I'll simply say this: you've got the wrong 70s.
If you talk to the people who were there with the people involved in the original campaigns, they'll point back to an even older tradition of referee moderated war gaming. An approach that goes back to Free Kriegspiel in 1876.
So it's okay that Old School in terms of RPGs excludes my favorite game published in the 1970s because it departs from the notions of referee moderation established a full century earlier.
But that's just for people who need "old school" to be about the past and not about today. Who don't accept that it's about current activity related to a particular approach to gaming present in the 70s rather than being a historical classification including all approaches present in the 70s.
Quote from: NathanIW;848208One thing I had to get over was this idea that what people mean by old school or OSR must include all things from the early days of the hobby. I thought it was ridiculous that some ideas present in games published in the 70s would be excluded.
Now I see that it's actually about today. When people talk about OSR or old school in relation to RPGs they don't mean "stuff present in the first decade of the hobby." Instead they mean a very specific approach to play that actually excludes elements that show up very early in the history of RPGs.
It's not a historical categorization where examples to the contrary prove it wrong, it's about an identifiable approach and games and ideas produced now that align with that approach.
--
For anyone who insists that a definition of old school that excludes ideas present in the 1970s is useless (as I used to) then I'll simply say this: you've got the wrong 70s.
If you talk to the people who were there with the people involved in the original campaigns, they'll point back to an even older tradition of referee moderated war gaming. An approach that goes back to Free Kriegspiel in 1876.
So it's okay that Old School in terms of RPGs excludes my favorite game published in the 1970s because it departs from the notions of referee moderation established a full century earlier.
But that's just for people who need "old school" to be about the past and not about today. Who don't accept that it's about current activity related to a particular approach to gaming present in the 70s rather than being a historical classification including all approaches present in the 70s.
Which is all fine except that the people claiming Old School credentials are also doing a fair bit of one-true-wayism.
Its fine to say this was a way of playing that was common in this place in this period but it should be parenthesised with at the same time this alternate style of play was also popular here etc.
Quote from: jibbajibba;848225Which is all fine except that the people claiming Old School credentials are also doing a fair bit of one-true-wayism.
I don't see a whole lot of that. I think that's often read into it by people who don't like the distinction in the first place. I see more this-is-the-way-I-playism than one-true-wayism.
Quote from: NathanIW;848208One thing I had to get over was this idea that what people mean by old school or OSR must include all things from the early days of the hobby. I thought it was ridiculous that some ideas present in games published in the 70s would be excluded.
Now I see that it's actually about today. When people talk about OSR or old school in relation to RPGs they don't mean "stuff present in the first decade of the hobby." Instead they mean a very specific approach to play that actually excludes elements that show up very early in the history of RPGs.
It's not a historical categorization where examples to the contrary prove it wrong, it's about an identifiable approach and games and ideas produced now that align with that approach.
--
For anyone who insists that a definition of old school that excludes ideas present in the 1970s is useless (as I used to) then I'll simply say this: you've got the wrong 70s.
If you talk to the people who were there with the people involved in the original campaigns, they'll point back to an even older tradition of referee moderated war gaming. An approach that goes back to Free Kriegspiel in 1876.
So it's okay that Old School in terms of RPGs excludes my favorite game published in the 1970s because it departs from the notions of referee moderation established a full century earlier.
But that's just for people who need "old school" to be about the past and not about today. Who don't accept that it's about current activity related to a particular approach to gaming present in the 70s rather than being a historical classification including all approaches present in the 70s.
Pretty much this, yes.
Quote from: NathanIW;848208But that's just for people who need "old school" to be about the past and not about today. Who don't accept that it's about current activity related to a particular approach to gaming present in the 70s rather than being a historical classification including all approaches present in the 70s.
Fair and accurate point. But one might as well ask, what is "new school"? Is Pathfinder new school? What about Polaris? Apocalypse World? Vampire: the Masquerade?
(Fun fact: V:tM is closer chronologically to OD&D than to 5e. Do the math and feel old age creeping in.)Things converge and diverge as time goes by, branching out like a tree pruned by the invisible scissors of fad and market. My view, doubtlessly skewed by my own time (1992) and place (Brazil) of entry in the hobby, is that the OSR has been about reviving and experimenting with a playstyle that's gotten out of vogue somewhere between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s.
I can claim limited exposure to this early in the 1990s, mostly via the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, and in fact I doubt I'd be so interested in OSR material were it not due to the combination of (a) my limited exposure (and lasting adhesion) to what we today would agree to call an "old school" or "OSR" design philosophy, and (b) not having this playstyle directly catered to in a long time.
In any case, while I understand some gamers may feel that the OSR has appropriated the "old school" designation, to the detriment of the variety of playstyles in vogue back in the day, as an OSR-friendly gamer I'm not really interested in claims of legitimacy or an unbroken lineage that can be traced back to David Wesely's Braunsteins, or free Kriegspiels, or whatever. You have a good, non-linear dungeon, or a neatly keyed hexcrawl with sword-and-sorcery sensibilities, or some random tables I can use, or a clever new D&D hack, I'll look into it. It's not the full extent of my gaming fandom but I definitely consider myself an enthusiast.
Quote from: The Butcher;848257Fair and accurate point. But one might as well ask, what is "new school"?
Anything and everything that one wishes to point at in order to form a contrast. But then often only for that one point of contrast. "New School" is rhetoric. Not with any negative connotations though, but in terms of it's original meaning of effective communication. Like if I say "not like this" and point at something and call in "new school" in order to explain something about what I'm doing now with regards to an old school approach. And just as "old school" excludes stuff from the 70s, "new school" can include stuff from the 70s. It's not about historical categorization but about communication. It's okay that Runequest's approach to skills is both "new school" and is from the 70s.
QuoteIn any case, while I understand some gamers may feel that the OSR has appropriated the "old school" designation, to the detriment of the variety of playstyles in vogue back in the day, as an OSR-friendly gamer I'm not really interested in claims of legitimacy or an unbroken lineage that can be traced back to David Wesely's Braunsteins, or free Kriegspiels, or whatever.
Well said. I'm also totally okay with OSR proponents having monopolized "old school" in regards to RPGs. I'm okay if they really have appropriated the term and any critic pointing that out is right. It's about effective communication about what people are doing and what you should expect from their work. "Old school" isn't about a historical category but about a current approach that calls back to it. And if someone was back there playing in Wesely's game or at Gary's table, good for them. It's cool they can talk about it and I like hearing little nuggets about the early days of D&D.
QuoteYou have a good, non-linear dungeon, or a neatly keyed hexcrawl with sword-and-sorcery sensibilities, or some random tables I can use, or a clever new D&D hack, I'll look into it. It's not the full extent of my gaming fandom but I definitely consider myself an enthusiast.
Me too. I'm terribly pragmatic and anti-commercial when it comes to RPGs. I'm looking to get a pretty specific thing out of what people are producing and if they stick to this narrow subset of gaming that has come to be called "old school" then I know I'm at least dealing with something that is likely to interest me. There is simply too much out there to be able to pay attention to it all, so having a network of blogs, g+ communities, publishers, artists, designers, etc., that are on the same page about this definitely saves me from wasting time on wading through stuff I'm not interested in.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;848156No different than how a lot of people play now.
Yes! Me included! And a bunch of other people in this thread, I would guess.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;848156Even those that did want to tell a story back in say, '82? Or is that too New School for you?
TBH I like New School games. Or at least a few aspects of them. I just enjoy OS games more, nowadays.
OS isn't strictly chronological. People have been telling stories since the dawn of time, so I guess you could say 10,000 BC if you are claiming OS credit for telling stories, and I would have to agree.
Didn't understand the 82 reference, though. Are you thinking of a particular module (Pharaoh was published in 83, Dragonlance in 84)?
We all like to tell stories in once sense or another. Some of us use the game as the basis for the story, while others use the story as the basis for the game.
Quote from: NathanIW;848208One thing I had to get over was this idea that what people mean by old school or OSR must include all things from the early days of the hobby. I thought it was ridiculous that some ideas present in games published in the 70s would be excluded.
Now I see that it's actually about today. When people talk about OSR or old school in relation to RPGs they don't mean "stuff present in the first decade of the hobby." Instead they mean a very specific approach to play that actually excludes elements that show up very early in the history of RPGs.
It's not a historical categorization where examples to the contrary prove it wrong, it's about an identifiable approach and games and ideas produced now that align with that approach.
--
For anyone who insists that a definition of old school that excludes ideas present in the 1970s is useless (as I used to) then I'll simply say this: you've got the wrong 70s.
If you talk to the people who were there with the people involved in the original campaigns, they'll point back to an even older tradition of referee moderated war gaming. An approach that goes back to Free Kriegspiel in 1876.
So it's okay that Old School in terms of RPGs excludes my favorite game published in the 1970s because it departs from the notions of referee moderation established a full century earlier.
But that's just for people who need "old school" to be about the past and not about today. Who don't accept that it's about current activity related to a particular approach to gaming present in the 70s rather than being a historical classification including all approaches present in the 70s.
Well said.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;848268We all like to tell stories in once sense or another. Some of us use the game as the basis for the story, while others use the story as the basis for the game.
That's a nice way of putting it.
I cannot see how I could preach some "one true way" with this OS/NS stuff.
There are lots of things I like about OS games and a lot of things I like about NS.
Not only I play both but I wrote a game that is in many ways the opposite of what I (and others) describe as OS (characters are special from the start, for example, they are encourage to write backgrounds and passions, and character creation isn't random and surely takes more than 10 minutes).
It is like playing Dark Souls and Plants versus Zombies. Why shouldn't I do both?
Stick around long enough and you'll run into the OSR Taliban. They're the ones who claim that combat wasn't really an important part of D&D until 3rd edition. Or that nobody used published adventures back in the day. Or that PCs loaded down with magic items are a new school thing.
It is absolutely revisionism.
I just think it's sad that so many long-time players seem almost ashamed to talk about how they really played, and instead prefer to theory-wank about how they should have played.
I think the key difference is old school relied on the player himself for most things while new school systematized it. Old school relied more on logic and RP, whereas new school abstracted them to mechanics.
Quote from: The Butcher;848257Fair and accurate point. But one might as well ask, what is "new school"? Is Pathfinder new school? What about Polaris? Apocalypse World? Vampire: the Masquerade?
New school is like the cake and the spoon. :)
Seriously, there is a self-described Old School out there, and it's a recognizable thing, even if "Old School" may not be the most accurate descriptor (I prefer "Early Gygaxian", but no one asked me) and may be used in the same way one speaks of the 'Fair Folk' and the 'Good People'. :)
But I don't know that I've
ever seen anyone identify as "New School", and it doesn't seem to be used as anything more than a way of saying "not Old School." Anything that can run from Runequest and Rolemaster (in some definitions), through the World of Darkness, to FATE and Dungeon World, Pathfinder and Nobilis and all points between, is pretty much a meaningless term.
Is Amber old school?
Is Toon old school?
Is Space Opera with its "skills for everything" old school?
Is Palladium's Splicers or Heroes Unlimited or After the Bomb old school?
The problem I see with discussions of "what is old school" and "what is OSR" too often focus on TSR D&D vs. WotC D&D and that confuses the discussion as the rest of the rich history of the RPG hobby is left out.
Also, as I (and others) have previously discussed, the OSR - as a community - is predominantly an AD&D Revival movement with a smaller subset focused on development of retrowhatevers and another small subset focused on revival of non-D&D games of the early days.
So "what is old school" has different definitions for the various subgroups. For instance, there is an OSR school of thought that Old School is "written by Gygax" or "published by TSR" and FOR THEM, the OSR is about playing with the original games and modules.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;848267Didn't understand the 82 reference, though. Are you thinking of a particular module (Pharaoh was published in 83, Dragonlance in 84)?
I am speaking of a couple of DMs who started their campaign in 1982 and being girls of the time period were very much into Fantasy novels, and they wanted to play a game simulating things that they read. They were fans of Tolkien and Terry Brooks, and wanted to emulate stories of that nature.
I didn't actually join until 1986, but they ignored all the basics that people are claiming were 'old school' style and ran it their way. I loved it, but I had no real clue what it was other than it vaguely being D&D. In '89 is when I really got into this hobby, and those two girls largely informed and shaped my gaming habits.
So to me, this 'Old School' stuff people are claiming are how it was 'originally' played, is New School, I only started seeing people do it within the last 2 decades.
Quote from: Haffrung;848281Stick around long enough and you'll run into the OSR Taliban. They're the ones who claim that combat wasn't really an important part of D&D until 3rd edition.
It's not that combat wasn't important, but that combat was fast and somewhat abstract until the Player's Option books appeared. Sure there were many groups with complex house rules for combat that made it take much longer but combat wasn't designed by the rules to be a time-consuming tactical battle before then. Also, tactics in combat were what I call "real-world" tactics (defend from higher ground, attack from the flanks or the rear, etc.) as opposed to what I call "rules manipulation tactics" (the tactical manipulation of interacting rules widgets).
Length of combat (and full-on "rule manipulation tactics" in 4e) is one of the main reasons I do not like WOTC editions of D&D. If the average length of a combat encounter in an RPG (including any setup and tear-down of minis and terrain if required) is much over 10-15 minutes, it bores me both as a player and as a GM. Rules manipulation tactics do not interest me at all as I'm not interested enough in RPG rules mechanics -- I expect the rules to fade into the background not be upfront and center as I play. Are my feelings universal? Of course not, but I have near zero interest in games with lengthy and complex combat or where the rules are designed to be upfront and center when I'm playing a character.
Quote from: NathanIW;848208Now I see that it's actually about today. When people talk about OSR or old school in relation to RPGs they don't mean "stuff present in the first decade of the hobby." Instead they mean a very specific approach to play that actually excludes elements that show up very early in the history of RPGs.
This.
If you go back and look at the earliest materials produced after people started using the OGL in ways not envisioned by WOTC, they consistently spoke a style of gaming that died out in RPG gaming, and going back and exploring the path not taken from that point.
The idea was not exclusionary - the fact that it recognized the hobby largely went in another route with later games pretty much says the approach that ended up dominating was present all along.
I acknowledge that people were vocal from the beginning about not agreeing with the game as it was presented, even as they continued to play it. Requests for more realism, a heavier emphasis on role-playing (or story, or narrative, or however you want to term it), greater complexity, etc., are always there.
In the beginning there was a much greater split among gamers, however. And I would say that those who complained most about D&D as first written got what they wanted over time, and probably were more likely to keep RPGs as a primary form of recreation throughout the years. For whatever reason, they identified with RPGs more heavily. Or perhaps it was partly since that play style was more consistently (and officially) encouraged later, they continued to find the industry's output worth their money. But I don't see how anyone can read published output over that long period of time and not see a significant difference in tone and emphasis, even if the mechanics didn't change much.
Thus, the path not taken. Or perhaps,
continued. Not "the only path that existed during that time".
The problem was the choice of the term "old-school". It was too general.
Quote from: Haffrung;848281Stick around long enough and you'll run into the OSR Taliban. They're the ones who claim that combat wasn't really an important part of D&D until 3rd edition. Or that nobody used published adventures back in the day. Or that PCs loaded down with magic items are a new school thing.
It is absolutely revisionism.
While in the vast space of the internet I'm sure that somebody said that somewhere, sometime, I think that to imply that those are commonly held beliefs is not being very fair at all. I certainly don't see many people advocating those positions. Maybe I'm in the wrong OSR neighborhoods, but the ones I spend the most time in are considered pretty conservative.
Also, I think there's a lot of confusing of "combat with lots of feats and mechanical doo-dads wasn't part of early published rules" with "combat wasn't really important until 3rd edition". Those two statements are not the same. Neither is "PCs shouldn't be entitled to X number of magical items at Y levels" equivalent to "There weren't many DMs who gave out so many magic items that characters looked like Christmas trees before X year".
Noting that a thing became explicit in rules is not the same as saying that it sprang from the head of Zeus like Athena when those rules were published.
Quote from: Spinachcat;848367For instance, there is an OSR school of thought that Old School is "written by Gygax" or "published by TSR" and FOR THEM, the OSR is about playing with the original games and modules.
Perhaps, but I don't see much call to stick to the original modules. The rules, yes - I personally don't see much point to new rulesets, as I was never looking for a new game. But (as an example) OSRIC was designed to allow publishing new adventures for those original games moreso than it was to replace them. If there are people advocating only playing modules published by TSR that must be a micro community so small it has escaped my notice.
Quote from: RandallS;848398It's not that combat wasn't important, but that combat was fast and somewhat abstract until the Player's Option books appeared. Sure there were many groups with complex house rules for combat that made it take much longer but combat wasn't designed by the rules to be a time-consuming tactical battle before then. Also, tactics in combat were what I call "real-world" tactics (defend from higher ground, attack from the flanks or the rear, etc.) as opposed to what I call "rules manipulation tactics" (the tactical manipulation of interacting rules widgets).
Length of combat (and full-on "rule manipulation tactics" in 4e) is one of the main reasons I do not like WOTC editions of D&D. If the average length of a combat encounter in an RPG (including any setup and tear-down of minis and terrain if required) is much over 10-15 minutes, it bores me both as a player and as a GM. Rules manipulation tactics do not interest me at all as I'm not interested enough in RPG rules mechanics -- I expect the rules to fade into the background not be upfront and center as I play. Are my feelings universal? Of course not, but I have near zero interest in games with lengthy and complex combat or where the rules are designed to be upfront and center when I'm playing a character.
I agree with all of this. And I know from your posts that you and I have pretty compatible ideas about D&D. But I have actually been told that the idea of old-school D&D was to avoid combat. Not fast combats, but as close to zero combats as you can manage. Now, I'm well familiar with running away from killer monsters and living to fight another day. But I think 'the idea of old-school D&D was to avoid combat' is overstating things to an absurd degree, and not match my experience, or what I saw of dozens of other groups (my city and schools had a thriving D&D scene in the early 80s). We cleared out those Caves of Chaos. And White Plume Mountain. And the Caverns of Tsojcanth. It was the only way to make sure you didn't miss any loot.
Again, the 'old-school D&D was never about combat' meme is trying to portray a very specific mode of play - cautious megadungeon exploration and looting - as the norm. Hey, it's a fun mode. I've ventured into The Dark Tower in a party of 1st level characters, so I bow to no man in fantasy frickin' Vietnam cred. It just irks me to see a very specific and extreme mode of play cited as the norm, the implication being all those kids clearing out the Caves of Chaos weren't playing the game right (and some of the more pissy grognards come right out and say D&D was ruined by 1979).
Quote from: Haffrung;848407But I think 'the idea of old-school D&D was to avoid combat' is overstating things to an absurd degree, and not match my experience, or what I saw of dozens of other groups (my city and schools had a thriving D&D scene in the early 80s). We cleared out those Caves of Chaos. And White Plume Mountain. And the Caverns of Tsojcanth. It was the only way to make sure you didn't miss any loot.
I think you are adding something that I don't see present when people make arguments similar to what you are talking about.
Saying that "the older rules implicitly encouraged avoiding combat as much as possible by heavily weighting XP towards treasure and not monsters" is not the same as saying "People didn't love to lay waste to monsters from day 1". It wasn't the optimal play according to the rules as written. That didn't stop anyone from doing it, or enjoying it, and I've never seen anyone say that there was some sort of hobby-wide understanding of the implications of the experience rules in 1979. That doesn't mean those rules didn't weight the rewards as it did, or that a style of play that tried to avoid combat with low likelihood of gaining treasure thereby wasn't probably the "smart" play.
Smart does not equal "what people really enjoyed doing when they sat down to roll dice".
Quote from: Christopher Brady;848378So to me, this 'Old School' stuff people are claiming are how it was 'originally' played, is New School, I only started seeing people do it within the last 2 decades.
We know from people who were there (at least one of which, if not more, has participated in this very thread) that it certainly is how it was 'originally' played. But you are right in identifying the more recent example as to what is truly important about "old school." It really is about now. The last 2 decades is about right. When the RPG industry went down one path and a small group didn't go with them and then things slowly stewed on the early internet until today.
Quote from: EOTB;848405If you go back and look at the earliest materials produced after people started using the OGL in ways not envisioned by WOTC, they consistently spoke a style of gaming that died out in RPG gaming, and going back and exploring the path not taken from that point.
This is a great way to put it. The path not taken.
QuoteThe problem was the choice of the term "old-school". It was too general.
And the use of the word "old." While accurate it also makes people think it's about doing history rather than game play today.
Quote from: Haffrung;848407'the idea of old-school D&D was to avoid combat' is overstating things to an absurd degree,
I totally agree. Though I think you're extrapolating talk about a smart in game strategy to mean talk about the game as a whole in a way that probably isn't right.
QuoteIt just irks me to see a very specific and extreme mode of play cited as the norm, the implication being all those kids clearing out the Caves of Chaos weren't playing the game right
I don't think it is claimed to be the norm. I think it's claimed to be smart play given the implications of 1 GP = 1 XP. Under that framwork, kids clearing out the Caves of Chaos weren't playing the game wrong, just not as strategically as others.
In my own game I don't use 1 GP = 1 XP. I used 1 survived adventure area = 1 XP (and way lower numbers for XP to level up). My game is specifically about exploring a mythic underworld so I reward it directly. Why kill monsters? They're a danger during exploration and leaving dangers behind you when it comes time to return to your safe haven can be very deadly. Why get treasure? The things you can buy with it and the fame for coming back to civilization with it.
Quote from: Spinachcat;848367The problem I see with discussions of "what is old school" and "what is OSR" too often focus on TSR D&D vs. WotC D&D and that confuses the discussion as the rest of the rich history of the RPG hobby is left out.
This isn't a problem, it's a feature. Why? Because "old school" isn't about doing history. It's about identifying one's interests. If it was about every approach to gaming that can be identified in the 70s, it becomes a totally useless term as it would represent too broad a variety of play to be useful in identifying anything.
It doesn't actually confuse the discussion either. As for the people who actually participated in the thread by following the original poster's lead of listing elements, they were remarkably on the same page. There's some discussion about some things being seen as essential vs option (Pundit raised that point point about dungeons not being essential), but largely everyone is communicating very clearly with no confusion.
The only people who are confused are those who still thinks "old school" is a historical category. It's not. It's a social category about play, blogs, discussion and publishing (and the people involved) today (and the very recent past).
Anyone who wants to raise a historical problem with old school excluding things (either explicitly or only implicitly by concentrating on D&D) like Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, etc., as well as approaches to included games like OD&D are factually correct in terms of history, but irrelevant in terms of what people who are actually into old school RPGs mean when they use the term.
It's like getting confused or angry by Art Nouveau not including the work of early Modernists. They're new right? They're "Nouveau" so why does Art Nouveau exclude them? Because Art Nouveau is a term about a social phenomenon (in this case, an art movement) and
not a historical category for all art produced from 1890 to 1910.
Quote from: Haffrung;848407I agree with all of this. And I know from your posts that you and I have pretty compatible ideas about D&D. But I have actually been told that the idea of old-school D&D was to avoid combat.
I think many of the people saying that are over-reacting to the later "fight everything that moves to the death" meme that seemed to really take off with 3e (which removed things like morale and reaction rolls from the game and made killing things the primary source of XP) and got to the point by the time of 4e that some of the designers sounded like they were claiming claiming that the only "fun time" in the game was "combat time". In comparison to this, old school D&D really was about avoiding combat -- when unnecessary and/or avoidable.
However, even if one really was playing to avoid combat as much as possible -- a lot of combat happened anyway because it was either necessary to get the treasure or could not be avoided. However, I think it is more accurate to say something like "old school D&D wasn't about seeking out combat but about only fighting when it was the best way to accomplish one's goals and it was about avoiding have to fight fair when you did fight you did everything possible to rig things in your favor before combat ever started."
QuoteNot fast combats, but as close to zero combats as you can manage. Now, I'm well familiar with running away from killer monsters and living to fight another day. But I think 'the idea of old-school D&D was to avoid combat' is overstating things to an absurd degree, and not match my experience, or what I saw of dozens of other groups (my city and schools had a thriving D&D scene in the early 80s). We cleared out those Caves of Chaos. And White Plume Mountain. And the Caverns of Tsojcanth. It was the only way to make sure you didn't miss any loot.
My play notes at the end of the Microlite74 3.0 editions annoy some of my fellow OSR people because they are pretty clear that the "wargaming" style of play that so a vocal group in the OSR trumpets as more or less the "the way" was only one of many ways quite early on -- to the point there were articles on different play styles published circa 1979-1980. I don't mention the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming but some people are sure I'm attacking it. I'm not, of course, as that is certainly where things started in Lake Geneva, but other styles of play quickly developed -- even among some of the people who learned directly from the LG crowd.
Quote from: Haffrung;848281Stick around long enough and you'll run into the OSR Taliban. They're the ones who claim that combat wasn't really an important part of D&D until 3rd edition. Or that nobody used published adventures back in the day. Or that PCs loaded down with magic items are a new school thing.
It is absolutely revisionism.
I just think it's sad that so many long-time players seem almost ashamed to talk about how they really played, and instead prefer to theory-wank about how they should have played.
Hrrmm...??? No taliban here.
Had just one guy in our original gaming group of fifteen or so, Tom Chimo, that used published adventures. All of the rest of us created our own dungeons, and we created our wilderness settings too. It was an important milestone of gaining entry of our "D&D" gaming group. How cool was your dungeon? What was awesome and unique about your gaming world?
All of us, except for Tom Chimo, played board wargames as well. Tom was one of the last new players to join our original wargames/D&D group.
There was no theory-wank, because there was no theory to wank. We spent lots of time though working out houserules for our campaign settings, and in working to resolve differences in our campaign games so that our characters could be effortlessly transported back and forth, into our different games as they were hosted by different GMs in our group.
We originally played
D&D, Traveller, Boot Hill, Tunnels & Trolls, Gamma World, Melee, Wizard, Advanced Melee/Wizard, Metamorphosis Alpha, The Morrow Project, and The Complete Warlock. We had character conversion tables for some of these, and made character conversion tables for the rest. We even used D&D to make a
Star Wars game in late 1977/early 1978.
Also, I say Wargames, because we had been playing board war games even earlier and we didn't see D&D/RPG stuff showing in our local hobby shop and the comic book store until 1977.
We often modded board wargames and would add our own homebrew expansions and house rules to improve playability early on, and liked seeing other player mods and add-ons in SPI's
Strategy & Tactics and Avalon Hills'
The General magazine.
We really enjoyed making up custom scenarios. That was the fun part of wargaming, and we went right into RPGs with that same philosophy, at least our local group did, in Colorado Springs.
Quote from: Haffrung;848407I agree with all of this. And I know from your posts that you and I have pretty compatible ideas about D&D. But I have actually been told that the idea of old-school D&D was to avoid combat. Not fast combats, but as close to zero combats as you can manage. Now, I'm well familiar with running away from killer monsters and living to fight another day. But I think 'the idea of old-school D&D was to avoid combat' is overstating things to an absurd degree, and not match my experience, or what I saw of dozens of other groups (my city and schools had a thriving D&D scene in the early 80s). We cleared out those Caves of Chaos. And White Plume Mountain. And the Caverns of Tsojcanth. It was the only way to make sure you didn't miss any loot.
It just irks me to see a very specific and extreme mode of play cited as the norm, the implication being all those kids clearing out the Caves of Chaos weren't playing the game right (and some of the more pissy grognards come right out and say D&D was ruined by 1979).
We played combat heavy right from the beginning, deaths were frequent in our campaigns from 1977-1981, and it was rare to see a character make it to 6th or 7th level or higher. Most characters died along the way.
Originally we didn't have magic users with lots of magic items. We didn't have magic users with uber powerful magic artifacts as well. These came as a result of the expansion of the game, and became much more prevalent from 1980 on. AD&D focused on these awesome magic item generation tables. With us, and Old School 0D&D the big thing was our characters crafting and creating their own unique magic items.
We didn't see that kind of play in the early tournaments though. What we saw instead was commonly labeled "Monty Haul" where these new players would just go into the AD&D book and pick or roll up what they wanted right off the treasure generation tables.
This loot wasn't found in dungeons. The players didn't fight and kill anything for it (Though some players had the nerve to claim that they did) It wasn't discovered in the lairs of hazardous creatures... it was simply cherry-picked by the players at the start of the gaming session.
We called it Monty Haul, because it was like that old TV game show
Let's Make a Deal, where the host (Monty Haul) would give all the SWAG behind a mystery curtain to the gameshow guest, and the guest didn't have to do a damn thing to really earn that SWAG. Like undeserved manna, or a gift from the heavens.
A Monty Haul campaign (with a "U") was the generic label for a Game Master (and his/her campaign) who would run adventures that were like the game show giveaways, except the questions weren't nearly as hard. Players would end up staggering under the loads of gold and gems (except the encumbrance rules often were ignored as well) and cherry-picking which magic items they wanted to keep because they had so many to choose from.
They weren't playing the original game as intended. They were playing a completely different game with the same name. That confused the hell out of alot of people.
This also diluted the real value of the old school game, which was a game based on merit and fixed advancements where the characters progressed by completing different types of achievements (Not just looting and combat!) that earned xp.
Good players could earn xp, and avoid TPKs or extreme casualties by avoiding a fight, and playing clever or smart, using strategy, alliances, teamwork, specialized equipment, and unique play styles to achieve comparable or unique goals. Good Gms would work all of that into their 0D&D game.
By 1981 that original play style was almost entirely gone, and had been replaced instead by lazy "New SchooL" AD&D GMs with pre-stocked dungeons where the only reasonable goal was to kill everything, and take whatever loot could be found.
lame. lame. lame. ...and boring as hell. That's just another reason TSR Ad&d died.
Quote from: GameDaddy;848452We played combat heavy right from the beginning, deaths were frequent in our campaigns from 1977-1981, and it was rare to see a character make it to 6th or 7th level or higher. Most characters died along the way.
Originally we didn't have magic users with lots of magic items. We didn't have magic users with uber powerful magic artifacts as well. These came as a result of the expansion of the game, and became much more prevalent from 1980 on. AD&D focused on these awesome magic item generation tables. With us, and Old School 0D&D the big thing was our characters crafting and creating their own unique magic items.
We didn't see that kind of play in the early tournaments though. What we saw instead was commonly labeled "Monty Haul" where these new players would just go into the AD&D book and pick or roll up what they wanted right off the treasure generation tables.
This loot wasn't found in dungeons. The players didn't fight and kill anything for it (Though some players had the nerve to claim that they did) It wasn't discovered in the lairs of hazardous creatures... it was simply cherry-picked by the players at the start of the gaming session.
We called it Monty Haul, because it was like that old TV game show Let's Make a Deal, where the host (Monty Haul) would give all the SWAG behind a mystery curtain to the gameshow guest, and the guest didn't have to do a damn thing to really earn that SWAG. Like undeserved manna, or a gift from the heavens.
A Monty Haul campaign (with a "U") was the generic label for a Game Master (and his/her campaign) who would run adventures that were like the game show giveaways, except the questions weren't nearly as hard. Players would end up staggering under the loads of gold and gems (except the encumbrance rules often were ignored as well) and cherry-picking which magic items they wanted to keep because they had so many to choose from.
They weren't playing the original game as intended. They were playing a completely different game with the same name. That confused the hell out of alot of people.
This also diluted the real value of the old school game, which was a game based on merit and fixed advancements where the characters progressed by completing different types of achievements (Not just looting and combat!) that earned xp.
Good players could earn xp, and avoid TPKs or extreme casualties by avoiding a fight, and playing clever or smart, using strategy, alliances, teamwork, specialized equipment, and unique play styles to achieve comparable or unique goals. Good Gms would work all of that into their 0D&D game.
By 1981 that original play style was almost entirely gone, and had been replaced instead by lazy "New SchooL" AD&D GMs with pre-stocked dungeons where the only reasonable goal was to kill everything, and take whatever loot could be found.
lame. lame. lame. ...and boring as hell. That's just another reason TSR Ad&d died.
All true but that game style stems from the actual published modules.
If a game releases "exemplar" examples of play you have to accept that people will follow those examples.
Also you miss out on the roleplay/thespy movement which is critical as it was the movement that actually "won". So whilst Monthy Haul was a thing the almost immediate reaction to it was as well. This is why CoC could be released in '81 as a system with no treasure haul no cool powerz and one in which reluctantly fighting things and dying horribly was the new black, and yet it did massively well.
Quote from: NathanIW;848421This isn't a problem, it's a feature. Why? Because "old school" isn't about doing history. It's about identifying one's interests. If it was about every approach to gaming that can be identified in the 70s, it becomes a totally useless term as it would represent too broad a variety of play to be useful in identifying anything.
Yes, this.
Quote from: jibbajibba;848456All true but that game style stems from the actual published modules.
If a game releases "exemplar" examples of play you have to accept that people will follow those examples.
Also you miss out on the roleplay/thespy movement which is critical as it was the movement that actually "won". So whilst Monthy Haul was a thing the almost immediate reaction to it was as well. This is why CoC could be released in '81 as a system with no treasure haul no cool powerz and one in which reluctantly fighting things and dying horribly was the new black, and yet it did massively well.
We actually started playing other RPG systems from 1980 on. I never did play CoC, although we did have GM in our gaming group that created lots of CoC type campaign settings. We played in these horror settings with abominably evil creatures, original demons, powerful undead, and hell spawn. He always created these vast mostly empty and forgotten cities and urban areas that were linked by a complex networks of gates, bridges, stairways, portals, and teleportals. There were energy creatures, and places where you could get trapped in time and space, and even traps which led permanently to other dimensions.
We also played more traditional feudalistic and gritty
Harn,
Runequest, and
Chivalry & Sorcery, and in the Mid 80's
Rolemaster. Had some friends adopt
Amber, and
Rifts and
GURPS, when they first showed up. Because no one wanted to play in a boring setting where the only goals were to kill and loot. People didn't want to play AD&D where they were being told how to play and how to GM. They wanted to figure out their own ways to make and play roleplaying games, and they adopted these other systems to do just that.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;847864it may not be essential, but it's certainly a quality of old school play afaic...the dungeon is pretty fundamental.
I don't disagree that dungeons are important in the OSR. Just saying they're not the be-all and end-all, and increasingly in the 'third wave' of OSR products they've become slightly less central though certainly still a big deal.
If NathanIW's gloss on "old school as community of practice, not history" will put a stop to complaints about Taliban, I'm all for it. After all, Mullah Omar is dead.
My own experience playing D&D starting around 1978 was that getting in fights would get you killed. This didn't necessarily mean we avoided combat; our characters just died a lot. My personal response to this as a DM was to give the players an ally who was a couple levels higher (we never bothered with by-the-book hirelings or henchmen), and also to have do-overs on several TPKs. Once the PCs got a few levels up, this ceased to be much of an issue, but I soon stopped playing D&D until college a few years later. Never bothered with published adventures.
The main fantasy alternative to D&D that I tried in the interim was TFT, which was more survivable for beginning PCs (but shallower power curve) and which we played almost exclusively using the published paragraph adventures. There was very little "campaign" if any. Maybe some characters carried over from one Death Test to another. Scenarios were very combat-focused. PC death was still quite frequent due to bad luck...but tactics could mitigate risk.
RPGs were just one option among many in a general wargaming scene that included a fair amount of Diplomacy, original Squad Leader, Magic Ream, Ogre, Wooden Ships & Iron Men, etc.
At college in the mid '80s the gamers I hung out with were still playing wargames occasionally including marathon sessions of Cosmic Encounter. But we mostly played D&D in increasingly houseruled forms. There were female players, which was new. (I do remember one female Diplomacy player BTW.) Characters never died that I recall.
At the time, to me, this was a very different style of game from what I'd done in the 70s to early 80s. I had a strong suspicion, occasionally spoken out loud and occasionally confirmed by the DMs, that PCs could not die. Corollary: as long as you weren't making a total mockery of the game from a social perspective, tactical and strategic thinking really wasn't too important. Paradoxically, these games also featured extremely long discussions of plans for upcoming battles.
In retrospect and I believe also at the time, two things were apparent:
1. As I said above, this was a different style.
2. I liked the old style, but my friends looked on it with suspicion.
To bridge the gap, I had ideas about various ways to mitigate or buffer the dangers of a more status-quo, sandbox-y game while players got up to speed; however, my participation in the hobby dwindled to zero in the 90s.
Quote from: RandallS;848444I think many of the people saying that are over-reacting to the later "fight everything that moves to the death" meme that seemed to really take off with 3e (which removed things like morale and reaction rolls from the game and made killing things the primary source of XP) and got to the point by the time of 4e that some of the designers sounded like they were claiming claiming that the only "fun time" in the game was "combat time". In comparison to this, old school D&D really was about avoiding combat -- when unnecessary and/or avoidable.
However, even if one really was playing to avoid combat as much as possible -- a lot of combat happened anyway because it was either necessary to get the treasure or could not be avoided. However, I think it is more accurate to say something like "old school D&D wasn't about seeking out combat but about only fighting when it was the best way to accomplish one's goals and it was about avoiding have to fight fair when you did fight you did everything possible to rig things in your favor before combat ever started."
Yep.
I get tired of being told that "old D&D" was about nothing but hack and slash, or that it was about killing everything that moved, or that we never role played because there are no skills for "diplomacy" or "negotiation" or "bluff" or "take shit."
Original D&D was written by wargamers for wargamers. And the first rule of strategy is "Fair fights are for chumps."
Also, I am explicitly NOT part of any "Old School Renaissance." I'm just playing the silly ass game pretty much the same way I always have.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;848786Original D&D was written by wargamers for wargamers. And the first rule of strategy is "Fair fights are for chumps."
This.
Also: It is constantly overlooked that most wargamers have a great sense of "theme". As an outsider, you see some abstract chits moving around on a hex-field, some dice being rolled, some charts consulted, but for the seasoned wargamer a battalion of PzIV's just rolled across the Eastern European peninsula flanking the Red Army in a relentless storm of steel.
Likewise, the "theme" of D&D is
there, in the rules! People back then obivously didn't need any additional bells and whistles to immerse themselves.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;848787Also, I am explicitly NOT part of any "Old School Renaissance." I'm just playing the silly ass game pretty much the same way I always have.
This; I'm in the same boat as you are. I've been told by several OSR types that I am not part of the OSR, which is cool; I think it's my unmodifed use of ancient rules sets like "Chainmail" or DGUTS that does it. Which is why I coined the term 'pre-school gaming' for what I do, a while back; I don't worry much about game mechanics or rules sets, and like Dave Wesely, just roll the dice and make decisions as needed both as a player and a referee/GM.
Fascinating, really; being at Con of the North and Gary Con was a real eye-opener.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;848790This; I'm in the same boat as you are. I've been told by several OSR types that I am not part of the OSR, which is cool;
It is definitely a symptom that we're dealing with a social category rather than a historical category when you get people trying to exclude people. It is fine though as those who have embraced that practice have largely lost the plot. For them it seems to have stopped being about games and started being about identity.
QuoteFascinating, really; being at Con of the North and Gary Con was a real eye-opener.
Could you expand on this?
Nathan, I disagree. You could be right, in that the message may be that you have to be plugged into the right social groups, or you have to be au courant with certain peripheral signs of membership (wear the right clothes, listen to the right bands; or in this case, gush about the right designers or publications).
But it's also as I thought you said above a matter of core practice and ideology (separate from history). The "OSR" is inchoate but there are certainly trends in the types of gaming and design that are popular and what are not. There does seem to be reinforcement of these trends in a more narrow manner than people who are just "old gamers" now or "gamers" back in the day.
For me I don't feel a strong attachment to the OSR label and the ideas are a bit out of sync with my tastes--I'm less attached to D&D, and I'm not into the gonzo weirdness which forms a major strain.
However that's irrelevant to the usefulness of the community to me. The OSR has sparked my interest in modding D&D both for simplicity and accessibility to existing gamers. And there are games that hit my sweet spot thematically, such as Other Dust, Spears of the Dawn, and Arrows of Indra.
Quote from: Arminius;848822Nathan, I disagree.
I think I may have either over or understated something then, because when I read the rest of your post I find nothing to disagree with.
QuoteBut it's also as I thought you said above a matter of core practice and ideology (separate from history). The "OSR" is inchoate but there are certainly trends in the types of gaming and design that are popular and what are not. There does seem to be reinforcement of these trends in a more narrow manner than people who are just "old gamers" now or "gamers" back in the day.
What I was getting at in my response to Chirine is that any creative endeavor that involves people can stop being about the thing itself and become about identity.
QuoteFor me I don't feel a strong attachment to the OSR label and the ideas are a bit out of sync with my tastes--I'm less attached to D&D, and I'm not into the gonzo weirdness which forms a major strain.
My only "attachment" to the OSR label (or the term "old school" as it relates to RPGs) is that it is useful in terms of identifying content.
I am becoming more and more interested in the weirder elements and have been enjoying the gonzo strain.
Let me clarify...
We've got OSR as a possible historical movement--literally inclusion (and exclusion) of practices based on their existence/popularity/functionality at some specific time in the past. For the sake of argument, we discard this.
Then we have OSR as adhering to the label in various ways but whose gaming practices aren't necessarily distinct from non-OSR. This would be a pure social identity.
Finally we have OSR as constellation of gaming practices/attitudes. This isn't just social, it's ideological.
The third is a useful category even if one doesn't believe in the first. (If the second was all there was to OSR, then OSR would be pretty vacuous--just a social clique.)
So if you forget the historical thing and just look at conceptual/ideological trends, you can see that broadly OSR is:
D&D-based, especially working from a foundation of 0e/1e/Basic
Sandbox-focused
Against preplotted adventures, planned dramatic events, and balanced set-piece combats
Uninterested in dissociated mechanics or narrative control--though obviously not rigidly so--if someone says HP are dissociated, or fortune points are narrative control, but they work from a pragmatic perspective, you shrug and move on.
Relatively accepting of PC death
Surprisingly interested in exploring themes outside of bog-standard Elf-Dwarf-Orc fantasy
Rather excited by gonzo, weird, metal themes
Maybe a few I've missed from earlier in this thead.
It's not all of these items together or any single one. (Although if it isn't some kind of D&D, that would be tough, and some editions need more modification than others in order to meet several criteria). It's more of a fuzzy logic or cloud/constellation, but if you look at games and the discussion as a whole, you can see some coherence or gravitational pull that distinguishes the OSR from the wider hobby.
Quote from: NathanIW;848815It is definitely a symptom that we're dealing with a social category rather than a historical category when you get people trying to exclude people. It is fine though as those who have embraced that practice have largely lost the plot. For them it seems to have stopped being about games and started being about identity.
(on recent conventions)
Could you expand on this?
That's the feeling that I got in my on-line conversations over the past five years. There seems to be a very distinct dichotomy between OSR people in forums and in blogs, and how they look at and approach the modern style of gaming. What I found strange was the 'mythology' that has grown up around how Gary, Dave, and Phil are supposed to have played, and how they ran their game sessions. There almost seems to be a sort of 'revealed wisdom of the prophets' about how they did things, and I didn't get a very positive reaction when I mentioned what I had seen in my time with them. I felt like the little boy who said "but the Emperor has no clothes!", which is why I started to back off the Internet to a great degree; I have no wish to be the one contradicting what almost seems like a question of faith.
Going out to our local Con of the North and Lake Geneva's Gary Con was fascinating; getting 'out into the field' and seeing some 'ground truth' was a real eye-opener, as I got to see and talk to a lot of people about what they did in their gaming. Much to my surprise, my observations and comments on 'Ye Olden Dayes" struck a very positive note with them.
I ran an EPT RPG at Gary Con - just EPT, no modifications, no nothing; just straight 'Phil', the way we used to play around his ping-pong table - and to my surprise the game was well over-booked for players. I had the usual Gary Con no-shows - this is because there is so much to do at the convention - but it made no difference; I took all of them into the game, and off we went. I did the game the exact same way I do all my games, and they seemed to like it. The game play was superb; these guys had thirty years of game play to draw on, the they 'got it' instantly. I had, I am delighted to say, one of the very best games I ever had with them; it was, speaking as a referee / GM, the fight of my career.
One of the things that they all commented on was the play style I use; I was doing things just like we did back then, and they really enjoyed it - they told me that they had never seen anything like it. I got a standing ovation form them, which I really treasure.
Quote from: Arminius;848835We've got OSR as a possible historical movement--literally inclusion (and exclusion) of practices based on their existence/popularity/functionality at some specific time in the past. For the sake of argument, we discard this.
When I discard the historical category, this is not what I'm discarding. I'm discarding the use of old school as a term for categorization of play that occurred in the 70s. I'm saying it is about a group of people today (and the last few years trailing back to the publication of 3e) who play, create and publish as a current extension of a subset of play that reflects (sometimes in a murky fashion) how a portion of people played in the mid 70s.
QuoteThe third is a useful category even if one doesn't believe in the first.
I do not discard the first. I discard the notion that old school is a historical category for all games and approaches from the 70s.
QuoteD&D-based, especially working from a foundation of 0e/1e/Basic
Sandbox-focused
Against preplotted adventures, planned dramatic events, and balanced set-piece combats
Uninterested in dissociated mechanics or narrative control--though obviously not rigidly so--if someone says HP are dissociated, or fortune points are narrative control, but they work from a pragmatic perspective, you shrug and move on.
Relatively accepting of PC death
Surprisingly interested in exploring themes outside of bog-standard Elf-Dwarf-Orc fantasy
Rather excited by gonzo, weird, metal themes
Good list.
QuoteIt's not all of these items together or any single one. (Although if it isn't some kind of D&D, that would be tough, and some editions need more modification than others in order to meet several criteria). It's more of a fuzzy logic or cloud/constellation, but if you look at games and the discussion as a whole, you can see some coherence or gravitational pull that distinguishes the OSR from the wider hobby.
Absolutely.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;848837What I found strange was the 'mythology' that has grown up around how Gary, Dave, and Phil are supposed to have played, and how they ran their game sessions. There almost seems to be a sort of 'revealed wisdom of the prophets' about how they did things, and I didn't get a very positive reaction when I mentioned what I had seen in my time with them. I felt like the little boy who said "but the Emperor has no clothes!", which is why I started to back off the Internet to a great degree; I have no wish to be the one contradicting what almost seems like a question of faith.
I've noticed the same thing. Like when I read through the Q&A with Gary on dragonsfoot and he keeps getting people asking him for a word from on high about the right way to do something in AD&D and he keeps telling them that whatever works for them is the right answer.
QuoteGoing out to our local Con of the North and Lake Geneva's Gary Con was fascinating; getting 'out into the field' and seeing some 'ground truth' was a real eye-opener, as I got to see and talk to a lot of people about what they did in their gaming. Much to my surprise, my observations and comments on 'Ye Olden Dayes" struck a very positive note with them.
They're there to play games and have fun rather than have an internet identity.
QuoteI did the game the exact same way I do all my games, and they seemed to like it. The game play was superb; these guys had thirty years of game play to draw on, the they 'got it' instantly. I had, I am delighted to say, one of the very best games I ever had with them; it was, speaking as a referee / GM, the fight of my career.
One of the things that they all commented on was the play style I use; I was doing things just like we did back then, and they really enjoyed it - they told me that they had never seen anything like it. I got a standing ovation form them, which I really treasure.
I'm going to join in on your questioning thread to ask more about this in general, but more specific to this thread I do have one question:
What do you think was at the heart of what they had never seen before? What do you consider to be the most important part of your approach? Getting a standing ovation at a game con table is a super rare thing (don't know if I've heard of it before) so I'd be remiss if I didn't ask more about your approach.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;848837That's the feeling that I got in my on-line conversations over the past five years. There seems to be a very distinct dichotomy between OSR people in forums and in blogs, and how they look at and approach the modern style of gaming. What I found strange was the 'mythology' that has grown up around how Gary, Dave, and Phil are supposed to have played, and how they ran their game sessions. There almost seems to be a sort of 'revealed wisdom of the prophets' about how they did things, and I didn't get a very positive reaction when I mentioned what I had seen in my time with them. I felt like the little boy who said "but the Emperor has no clothes!", which is why I started to back off the Internet to a great degree; I have no wish to be the one contradicting what almost seems like a question of faith.
Going out to our local Con of the North and Lake Geneva's Gary Con was fascinating; getting 'out into the field' and seeing some 'ground truth' was a real eye-opener, as I got to see and talk to a lot of people about what they did in their gaming. Much to my surprise, my observations and comments on 'Ye Olden Dayes" struck a very positive note with them.
I ran an EPT RPG at Gary Con - just EPT, no modifications, no nothing; just straight 'Phil', the way we used to play around his ping-pong table - and to my surprise the game was well over-booked for players. I had the usual Gary Con no-shows - this is because there is so much to do at the convention - but it made no difference; I took all of them into the game, and off we went. I did the game the exact same way I do all my games, and they seemed to like it. The game play was superb; these guys had thirty years of game play to draw on, the they 'got it' instantly. I had, I am delighted to say, one of the very best games I ever had with them; it was, speaking as a referee / GM, the fight of my career.
One of the things that they all commented on was the play style I use; I was doing things just like we did back then, and they really enjoyed it - they told me that they had never seen anything like it. I got a standing ovation form them, which I really treasure.
Chirine, I would be very interested in hearing your take on this.
For example, from the points that where listed on the beginning of this thread, would you said some were absent or downplayed in "the old days"?
For example, see the points that were mentioned above (just the first few posts):
1) Rulings, not Rules. You don't need many rules, the GM can come up with something.
2) Player Skill, not Character Skill. You don't roll find or disarm traps, you describe it.
3) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).
4) 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.
5) Starting characters aren't special. They don't have elaborate backgrounds or many special abilities.
6) Resource management is important. You shouldn't be handwaving money, encumbrance, torches etc.
7) 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.
8) The main area of exploration is multi-level dungeons. Secondarily, wilderness hex crawls.
9) The game has clear built in danger signals, that warn the players when the PCs are out of their depth. These appear in two main forms: Dungeon levels (level 2 is harder than level 1), and monsters (orcs are harder than goblins are harder than kobolds). The latter means no orc mooks and orc slaughterkilldeathmachines -- except for NPC parties, meeting an orc means you're facing a monster with 1 HD (there are leader types, but they're part of the lair structure).
10) Wandering monsters make it dangerous to stay in one place. Since they lack the treasure of stay-at-home monsters, it forces the PCs to aggressively seek out lairs/hoards.
11) A sense of humor. Survival horror is leavened by jokes, most of which break the fourth wall.
A) Combat is fast and fairly abstract. While combat happens a lot in most old school games, it is not time-consuming nor is it intended to be the most interesting part of the session. Minis/pieces and battlemats can be used if the GM wants but they are never required.
B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
C) The rules are merely guidelines for the GM. The rules are not intended or designed to protect players from a "bad" GM. Players can and should, of course, not play with a GM they consider bad.
D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.
Which ones fit your playstyle and which don't?
For one thing, I know that Gygax eventually started characters at level 3, thus making them more heroic and with less chance of accidental death.
Quote from: Arminius;848592If NathanIW's gloss on "old school as community of practice, not history" will put a stop to complaints about Taliban, I'm all for it. After all, Mullah Omar is dead.
I think this is how the OSR views old-school now. It's not about sticking to some precise ur-D&D that's allegedly "how it was done back then". It's about playing and designing within a certain framework of rules and ideas that could fit the original style of D&D while still innovating wildly within that framework.
Well said.
I just got back from my M74/S&W game and while it lines up with all 15 points in Eric Diaz's latest post it also drastically departs from D&D in that it doesnt use classes, has spell points (and now also no separation between wizardly magic, druid magic and cleric magic), every magic item is cursed in some way* and has some things I've bolted on from other games. I've also really embraced some weird fiction sensibilities so it's definitely in that gonzo metal strain.
*in a way that would make sense for its crafter. Like a vampric blade that when you cut something with it you are fully rested and nourished and don't age for 24 hours but you can no longer get sustainance from eating food. It was made by a chaos priest with many beastman thralls she could feed off of as a means of becoming immortal. The player who has it is having some trouble whenever the party wants to stay in town for more than a day and is trying to figure out how to be able to cut people every day. He's also super worried about losing it as it will mean starving to death.
Quote from: NathanIW;848851I've noticed the same thing. Like when I read through the Q&A with Gary on dragonsfoot and he keeps getting people asking him for a word from on high about the right way to do something in AD&D and he keeps telling them that whatever works for them is the right answer.
They're there to play games and have fun rather than have an internet identity.
I'm going to join in on your questioning thread to ask more about this in general, but more specific to this thread I do have one question:
What do you think was at the heart of what they had never seen before? What do you consider to be the most important part of your approach? Getting a standing ovation at a game con table is a super rare thing (don't know if I've heard of it before) so I'd be remiss if I didn't ask more about your approach.
Taking it from the top...
Arneson and Barker had the same questions put to them - over and over and over and over. And they gave the same answer as Gary did, which always seemed to disappoint the questioner. There is no 'right way'; it's what works for your game group and your play style. It was all about having a bunch of your friends in for an afternoon or evening of fun and laughs. Yes, we were serious about our research and our painting, if we were doing miniatures, but the games themselves were much more of a 'social occasion'.
Players at Gary Con: I'd agree with that.
I'll try to answer this - you may want to have a look at my YouTube videos of a game session we ran. It was a true three-dimensional game, and I ran it like I run everything. Please have a look; it might explain what I do better then I can... :)
I learned four things from four guys.
Barker -
Know your world-setting inside and out. Be able to reach back into your researches and readings to be able to deal with whatever comes up in the course of the game.
Gygax -
Know your game. Play a lot of it, as much as you can, so you have a good feel for how the game works in actual practice.
Arneson -
Keep play fast and furious. If players are busy playing, they'll have more fun and you'll all have a better time.
Wesely -
Be prepared. have everything ready for the game, and be prepared to fake it a needed; if you get too many players then you expected, have 'spares' / 'alternates' ready for them to use.
(
Who's this 'Wesely' guy? Dave Wesly, the inventor of the Braunstein; I learned it from him.
Why is this important? Because Braunstein begat Blackmoor, which begat Greyhawk, which begat You Know What. That's a lot of begatting, but that's the way it was. I got very, very lucky.)
I've been 'doing Tekumel' for almost forty years, so I know the setting pretty well. I've been playing games like EPT and "Chainmail" for about as long, so I know how the numbers crunch. I do the number-crunching 'off-stage', and I keep the pace fast and furious. I made sure that I'd gone through the Jakallan Underworld again, and then I made up packets for the players for their PCs.
I did not do what I think are called 'pre-gens'; I created a name and a little bit of a back-story for each, and then rolled up the basic stats; I left all the skills blank, and had the players do these - it 'customizes' the PC, and gives the player 'buy in' on the person that they are playing. I provided blank stats sheets and notepads for their use (and a special Gary Con VII miniature from my collection) in an envelope; all the players got to see at the beginning of the game was a face (I used artwork from my archives), a name, and an occupation; players chose from that - I brought 25 PC envelopes for a 12 player game, and had something like 16 players in total - and then found a badge with color artwork of their PC for them to wear so their party could tell who was who.
I also provided two 'Designated Experts', friends of mine who had been playing in Tekumel for as long as I had - longer, in Bill Hoyt's case; he'd introduced Prof. Barker to Gary Gygax, along with Gronan. Their job was to answer questions on the world and the game for the players, so that I could focus on the game play. It worked fine; I got asked a few questions, but all of them very smart and very clever.
I provided miniatures for everyone to use as 'markers' for the marching order and as a 'tactical display'; the custom of the house out at the Professor's was that I would make a miniature of everyone's PC, and I still have them all. These were what we used, backed up by the lovely 'cardboard heroes' for Tekumel done by Amanda Dee. There was no 'mapping', per se; I used my digital copy of Phil's maps as projections up on the wall, so that everyone knew where they were all the time; it made things play a lot faster, and everyone had good information.
I also added my Secret Weapon - I persuaded Gronan to play as the 'Designated Local Guide'. I recreated a PC he'd some out at Phil's back in the day as an experiment, and surprised him with it with his own personalized envelope. I got the expected reaction, too: "YOU BASTARD!", which was the usual refrain in reaction to games I've done like the Great Mos Eisley Spaceport Raid. I gave him a photocopy of the Jakalla Underworld map in all it's over-sized glory, and off we went. (I did not give anyone a copy of the map key - they were going to have to find that out the hard way...)
They dod a great job. They used the vintage figures just the way we did, back in the day; no rulers, no fussing, just "I'm right here." The march order ebbed and flowed like a well-practiced machine, and I got
nothing from them that I could use. They stayed focused, they stayed in character, and they
role-played. No fussing over game mechanics - I did provide a half-dozen copies of EPT from my archives - and we played like our PC lives depended on it. They were fast, they were clever, and they kept surprising me all through the game session.
It was wonderful.
I got two huge compliments at the end of the fast and furious session: one from the players, who gave me the standing ovation, and one from Gronan:
"Chirine, you've surpassed yourself."
Have a look at the video; it may be a better way to explain what I do.
Anything with Armor Class in it is old-school.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;848873Chirine, I would be very interested in hearing your take on this.
For example, from the points that where listed on the beginning of this thread, would you said some were absent or downplayed in "the old days"?
For example, see the points that were mentioned above (just the first few posts):
1) Rulings, not Rules. You don't need many rules, the GM can come up with something.
2) Player Skill, not Character Skill. You don't roll find or disarm traps, you describe it.
3) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).
4) 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.
5) Starting characters aren't special. They don't have elaborate backgrounds or many special abilities.
6) Resource management is important. You shouldn't be handwaving money, encumbrance, torches etc.
7) 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.
8) The main area of exploration is multi-level dungeons. Secondarily, wilderness hex crawls.
9) The game has clear built in danger signals, that warn the players when the PCs are out of their depth. These appear in two main forms: Dungeon levels (level 2 is harder than level 1), and monsters (orcs are harder than goblins are harder than kobolds). The latter means no orc mooks and orc slaughterkilldeathmachines -- except for NPC parties, meeting an orc means you're facing a monster with 1 HD (there are leader types, but they're part of the lair structure).
10) Wandering monsters make it dangerous to stay in one place. Since they lack the treasure of stay-at-home monsters, it forces the PCs to aggressively seek out lairs/hoards.
11) A sense of humor. Survival horror is leavened by jokes, most of which break the fourth wall.
A) Combat is fast and fairly abstract. While combat happens a lot in most old school games, it is not time-consuming nor is it intended to be the most interesting part of the session. Minis/pieces and battlemats can be used if the GM wants but they are never required.
B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
C) The rules are merely guidelines for the GM. The rules are not intended or designed to protect players from a "bad" GM. Players can and should, of course, not play with a GM they consider bad.
D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.
Which ones fit your playstyle and which don't?
For one thing, I know that Gygax eventually started characters at level 3, thus making them more heroic and with less chance of accidental death.
Right. Let me take your points in order, if I may:
1) Yes, very much so.
2) Yes, very much so; 'role-playing', not 'roll playing'.
3) Yes; players don;t have 'powers' that get them out of (and into) trouble, they have skill and experience.
4) Yes. It's you own damn fault you kicked that sleeping dragon.
5) No. All PCs are special, as they are people that we happen to be playing, like actors in a part. They might have some backstory, and they might have something special in their pouches, but nothing hugely 'special'.
6) Yes. If it isn't on your card (Phil's 3x5 index cards), you don't have it.
Period.7) No. The GM might - and usually did - have an over-arching story line for his world setting, but it was normally quite independent of what the players did. We did our 'bit parts', providing local color and laughs, but we usually were spectators on the fringe of the meta-game. There was none of what seems to be called 'story gaming'; none of that, in our games.
8) No. We had entire worlds to explore. We spent very little time doing either thing you mention.
9) No. You had to be alert all the time when on an adventure. There were no 'danger signs'; danger usually snuck up on us, and it was our look-out to meet and vanquish it. 'Ambushes' were quite common.
10) No. Never saw this in the game sessions I was in. Wandering monsters were always worth frisking, after we killed them.
11) Yes, very much so.
A) Yes, very much so. Also, battlemats hadn't been invented yet; we used brown wrapping paper, 'cause it was cheap and came in long rolls.
B) Depends. for GMs, no, they had to know the game; for players, yes, they didn't have to know the rules inside and out.
C) Yes.
D) Yes; role-playing, not roll-playing.
Phil did the same thing, after a while.
Does this help any?
Quote from: chirine ba kal;848837That's the feeling that I got in my on-line conversations over the past five years. There seems to be a very distinct dichotomy between OSR people in forums and in blogs, and how they look at and approach the modern style of gaming. What I found strange was the 'mythology' that has grown up around how Gary, Dave, and Phil are supposed to have played, and how they ran their game sessions. There almost seems to be a sort of 'revealed wisdom of the prophets' about how they did things, and I didn't get a very positive reaction when I mentioned what I had seen in my time with them. I felt like the little boy who said "but the Emperor has no clothes!", which is why I started to back off the Internet to a great degree; I have no wish to be the one contradicting what almost seems like a question of faith.
Crom's hairy nutsack, yes.
I frequently use the phrase "we made up some shit we thought would be fun." I have received an amazing amount of snarls and growls at this, which has surprised me immensely. I suppose I could say "It seemed like a good idea at the time," but that's just expressing the same thought in a less humorous way.
The simple fact is that a lot of this stuff DIDN'T have a lot of deep thought behind it; Dave W, then Dave A, then Gary, did a lot of "Oh, let's see, need a rule for this, okay the rule is X." And if it wasn't horribly nonfunctional, the rule stayed.
For instance, I can almost guarantee how Baron Fant turning into Sir Fang went:
Dave A: "Okay, the vampire has killed Baron Fant."
Dave F: "Crap. Hey, does that mean that Baron Fant is going to rise again as a Vampire?"
Dave A: "Ummmmm, yeah."
Dave F: "Can I play the vampire?"
Dave A: * three second pause * "Uh... sure. We'll worry about the rules later."
And I'll bet a week's pay that that's pretty much exactly how it went.
Another thought.
We need to discard the phrase "rulings, not rules." It's not only not accurate, it has been the cause of a lot of pointless arguing in various places.
I want to substitute "Free, Not Rigid, Kriegspiel." Because Braunstein, Blackmoor, and Greyhawk all come FIRMLY out of the "Free Kriegspiel" tradition, where the referee's word is ultimate law, and any charts, tables, notes, or other things are to support the referee, not be the authority. There ARE rules; they are simply DIFFERENT rules. So "Rulings Not Rules" really isn't an accurate summary.
Besides, think of the looks on the faces of those who want to argue against it when you declare "Free Kriegspiel." It'll be fun!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_%28wargame%29#.22Free.22_Kriegsspiel
And I hereby declare the founding of the Free Kriegspiel Renaissance, devoted to bringing back the principles of Free Kriegspiel to RPGs. FKR forever!
And yes, "FKR" is indeed pronouned "Fucker."
In the immortal words of Vaugn Bode, "HOOHAH, Cheech, you fuker!"
FKR :D. Lol
I've always thought the only real difference between a rule and a ruling is one got written down in advance, so I'm all for ditching Finch's "rulings, not rules" for an Free Kriegspiel reference. It's just more accurate.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;849042Does this help any?
It helps a lot, really! Thanks.
One (rather long) question, if you will:
I understand the bit that you said characters are special - after all, they are the protagonists - what I mean is that they don't start with any special traits to differentiate themselves from, say, other 1st level fighters.
No protection against being killed by a goblin because they rolled bad, for example.
Some modern games say, for example, that heroes have special rules that don't apply to NPCs, or that a fighter is the only Fighter (with a capitol F), while the other are mere warriors, or that charachters should start with an unique trait ("I am the only half elf half dwarf in the world"), for example.
Would it be fair to say that characters started with few "special" bits (i.e., "just another 1st-level fighter") , and acquire importance during play? Or is that a misconception?
EDIT: also, could you elaborate on 7? when you say "we usually were spectators on the fringe of the meta-game", do you mean PCs actions didn't really influence the setting or "story"? Or do you mean that the GM created a story that stayed mostly on the background, while the story of the actual PCs wasn't predetermined?
All first level fighters are created equal within the limits of 3d6 in order 6 times. They acquire distinction through play.
This was a feature, not a bug.
Also, the advantages of a high Strength were small... an XP bonus. Stats were intended to be guidance, not restrictions, in keeping with the "Free Kriegspiel" spirit.
A character with everything between 9 and 12 is perfectly viable as any class in Original D&D.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;849064I want to substitute "Free, Not Rigid, Kriegspiel." Because Braunstein, Blackmoor, and Greyhawk all come FIRMLY out of the "Free Kriegspiel" tradition, where the referee's word is ultimate law, and any charts, tables, notes, or other things are to support the referee, not be the authority. There ARE rules; they are simply DIFFERENT rules. So "Rulings Not Rules" really isn't an accurate summary.
That's a good point, but the average RPG player I talk to today would likely have no idea what "Kriegspiel" was, let alone that there were rigid/strict and free variants and why the free variant was much more popular with the nineteenth century German officers. "rulings not rules" is a less accurate description that "Free Kriegspiel" but at least it communicates something to today's players.
QuoteAnd I hereby declare the founding of the Free Kriegspiel Renaissance, devoted to bringing back the principles of Free Kriegspiel to RPGs. FKR forever!
And yes, "FKR" is indeed pronouned "Fucker."
In the immortal words of Vaugn Bode, "HOOHAH, Cheech, you fuker!"
LOL. However, I can't argue with this.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;849077All first level fighters are created equal within the limits of 3d6 in order 6 times. They acquire distinction through play.
This was a feature, not a bug.
That was my impression, and something I appreciate.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;849076It helps a lot, really! Thanks.
One (rather long) question, if you will:
I understand the bit that you said characters are special - after all, they are the protagonists - what I mean is that they don't start with any special traits to differentiate themselves from, say, other 1st level fighters.
No protection against being killed by a goblin because they rolled bad, for example.
Some modern games say, for example, that heroes have special rules that don't apply to NPCs, or that a fighter is the only Fighter (with a capitol F), while the other are mere warriors, or that charachters should start with an unique trait ("I am the only half elf half dwarf in the world"), for example.
Would it be fair to say that characters started with few "special" bits (i.e., "just another 1st-level fighter") , and acquire importance during play? Or is that a misconception?
EDIT: also, could you elaborate on 7? when you say "we usually were spectators on the fringe of the meta-game", do you mean PCs actions didn't really influence the setting or "story"? Or do you mean that the GM created a story that stayed mostly on the background, while the story of the actual PCs wasn't predetermined?
Whew! That's a relief - I always worry that I'm confusing the issue!
Ah! Let me see if I can answer that for you, at least in Phil's campaign.
No, first level PCs have nothing special going for them. No special rules, no nothing; just the player's wits and skill in the world setting. The 'older players' tended to cover a lot for the new people, at least until they could hold their own, but that was our 'cooperative play' style. Nope, you have it right; they acquired their 'specialness' through play.
Re the meta-game: This was always running in the background of our adventures. Phil's Tekumel cooked along very nicely without our hands on the controls, and it served as the background for our adventures. We could indeed change the setting, as Tim Cox did in 1974 when he zapped Princess Ma'in with an Eye that changed her alignment; all hell broke loose, as he was charged with Imperial treason (amongst other things) and eventually hunted down and killed by the equivalent of bounty hunters. Likewise, we could win or lose battles and such, and it would affect the
history of the campaign. It would not affect the
timeline, though, as Phil has this meta-plot going in the deep background and we
generally didn't have an effect on that.
However, there were times when we were the right people in the right place at the right time; like the time in Khirgar when somebody tried to assassinate the newly revealed Prince Mirusiya:
**********
The ceremonies were long, tedious, and stifling. It seemed that every Temple, clan, legion, and government office had to have their part in the arcane rituals that attended a newly-revealed Prince; all had frantically dusted off musty books of protocols and ceremonies that hadn't ever been used in the memory of the men and women who tried to puzzle out just what they and their peers were supposed to do in a case like this. Precedent ruled the day, and the city was thrown into a complete uproar; if Baron Áld had chosen this day to attack Khirgár with his green-armored troops, he and they would have never been seen again. Not defeated by the armed might of the massed Legions of the Petal Throne, but simply lost in the enormous crowds that thronged every open space and street in the city.
The most important of the dignitaries and officials ended up where it had all begun two days previously, in the great hall of the Governor's palace. The trumpeting and drumming had once again deafened everyone, but this time in increasing waves of sound that had a physical impact. The new Prince of the Seal Imperium stood in new robes, all a-glitter with the symbols and glyphs of his new rank and station. His companions of his recent adventures, by his personal request, stood near him as he received the accolades of the representatives of the military, the Temples, and the clans.
Chirine was convinced that he'd had sweated right through his new finery; his Temple had been scandalized that he'd been seen with the Prince in his old clothes and armor, and all new sets of each had been provided to him at the Prince's express command. So, he stood there in his new ceremonial armor and endured, as had the rest of them.
There was a sudden break in the ceremonies; down by the entrance of the hall, a Priest of the Temple of Thúmis had suddenly stepped out of the crowd and into the pathway that the palace guards had been keeping clear for the high nobles to use as they approached the Prince. The guards moved to herd him back into the crowd, but then fell back in panic as one of their number froze and crumbled to dust; before the priest, a spectral grey hand seemed to float in the air!
Everyone froze in shock; the spell known as The Grey Hand was supposedly known to only a few specialized sorcerers of the Temple of Grugánu. It was also known as one of the very few ways to kill someone by sorcery that would render the victim beyond the spells and sorcery that the very rich and powerful used to cheat Death; if this was an assassination attempt, it was chosen and planned very well indeed.
The crowd around Chirine ebbed away from where he stood in their panic; he racked his brain to recall if he knew any sorcery that would be of use, but couldn't think of any. He looked to his right, and saw that the Prince still stood in his place. He knew what the Prince was thinking; neither a Vríddi or a Tlakotáni worthy of name and clan would run from danger, even a danger so absolute as this one. He made a quick decision as the would-be assassin shouted "Death to the false Prince!!!"
"I think not," he said in his Chákan accented Tsolyáni, and moved into the center of the hall until he stood between the assassin and the Prince. The rest of the guards had fallen back, leaving only the Chákan between the Prince and oblivion.
The assassin snarled, and gestured; his Grey Hand closed over Chirine, and the crowd in the room shuddered as the grey haze of the spell closed over the new armor he'd received from the Prince as a reward for his services. Many of them closed their eyes, not wanting to see Chirine suffer the same fate as has the unfortunate guard but moments before.
The soft accent came again through the hall. "You'll have to try harder then that, priest," they heard; eyes snapped open to see him still standing there in his armor. The assassin snarled again, and leapt for Chirine with a dagger he'd had concealed in his grey robes. The blunt end of Chirine's mace caught the man in the stomach and knocked him backwards; the shock of the blow dissipated the Grey Hand spell, and the enraged assassin lunged at the Chákan again. This time, Chirine's mace caught his assailant on the side of the head, and the assassin dropped writhing to the floor where he suddenly stiffened in the rigors of death.
Chirine knelt briefly to make sure the man was dead; stood, turned away from the body, and saluted the Prince. "I'm sorry, Most Noble Lord; he's dead."
The Prince replied, "No matter; our Omnipotent Legion will investigate him and deliver justice. Clean up this carrion, and let us continue."
Chirine slung his mace on his belt, and returned to where he had stood, and faced the ceremonies with a satisfied look on his face.
**********
Sorry about the wall of text; I hope it helps... :)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;849077All first level fighters are created equal within the limits of 3d6 in order 6 times. They acquire distinction through play.
This was a feature, not a bug.
Also, the advantages of a high Strength were small... an XP bonus. Stats were intended to be guidance, not restrictions, in keeping with the "Free Kriegspiel" spirit.
A character with everything between 9 and 12 is perfectly viable as any class in Original D&D.
Which is what actually makes the Fighter feel 'not special'. Because back in the day, the only class (out of two) that had defined special features, it was assumed (very much incorrectly) that anyone could be a Fighter. The average peasant fending you off with a stick was one such creature for a lot of players.
While Wizards were a special group, they were supposedly rare and old and long bearded because of the intense training needed to be a wizard.
Remember a lot of us did not have Mr. Gygax, Mr. Arnenson or Wesely to guide us as to what they meant, we only had the books and our pathetic and meagre imaginations and readings of the rules in front of us. And frankly, a lot of players to this very day has very little knowledge about medieval weapons work and just how much training is necessary to be barely decent with a whole slew of personal weaponry. As much as a wizard would need to study. Even the Cleric would get a lot of training, but instead of studying for spells, part of their day would be weapons training, followed by readings of the Prayers needed to petition their God(s) of choice to grant them a sliver of Their Power.
And then the Thief came out, the true 'everyman' (as frankly, learning how to sneak, or climbing the rest is less trained skill, more practice and experience, outside of thieves' tools) and they had a whole slew of special abilities. The Ranger popped up, the Paladin, Cavalier, Bard, Druid, for the longest time, the Fighter seemed to be getting the shortest end of the stick.
Gronan and Chirine, you have unique experiences, more so than any one of us here, because you got to play with the originators of the game, they could tell you what they meant! The rest of us poor schlubs didn't and had to make do with our own or the interpretations of our friends.
(
This is my recounting of my personal experience over the two Canadian provinces and the some fifty to one hundred other games I've talked and gamed with since the mid 80's. I've known, peripherally what D&D was since about 82-83, and I experienced snippets of the game until the point I really got into it at about 1989. Not to be treated as anything more than anecdotal.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849098Which is what actually makes the Fighter feel 'not special'. Because back in the day, the only class (out of two) that had defined special features, it was assumed (very much incorrectly) that anyone could be a Fighter. The average peasant fending you off with a stick was one such creature for a lot of players.
While Wizards were a special group, they were supposedly rare and old and long bearded because of the intense training needed to be a wizard.
Remember a lot of us did not have Mr. Gygax, Mr. Arnenson or Wesely to guide us as to what they meant, we only had the books and our pathetic and meagre imaginations and readings of the rules in front of us. And frankly, a lot of players to this very day has very little knowledge about medieval weapons work and just how much training is necessary to be barely decent with a whole slew of personal weaponry. As much as a wizard would need to study. Even the Cleric would get a lot of training, but instead of studying for spells, part of their day would be weapons training, followed by readings of the Prayers needed to petition their God(s) of choice to grant them a sliver of Their Power.
And then the Thief came out, the true 'everyman' (as frankly, learning how to sneak, or climbing the rest is less trained skill, more practice and experience, outside of thieves' tools) and they had a whole slew of special abilities. The Ranger popped up, the Paladin, Cavalier, Bard, Druid, for the longest time, the Fighter seemed to be getting the shortest end of the stick.
Gronan and Chirine, you have unique experiences, more so than any one of us here, because you got to play with the originators of the game, they could tell you what they meant! The rest of us poor schlubs didn't and had to make do with our own or the interpretations of our friends.
(This is my recounting of my personal experience over the two Canadian provinces and the some fifty to one hundred other games I've talked and gamed with since the mid 80's. I've known, peripherally what D&D was since about 82-83, and I experienced snippets of the game until the point I really got into it at about 1989. Not to be treated as anything more than anecdotal.)
I understand that, which is why I try to answer everyone's questions as honestly as I can. All I can do is give you a window into the past, to a certain place and time.
I can understand the Fighter getting the short end of the stick, too. The way Phil played, they had some very real advantages in the game setting over magic-users, and the way we played as a 'team' seemed to maximize their usefulness. There were times where the one would protect the other, and the opposite way around.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;849102I understand that, which is why I try to answer everyone's questions as honestly as I can. All I can do is give you a window into the past, to a certain place and time.
I can understand the Fighter getting the short end of the stick, too. The way Phil played, they had some very real advantages in the game setting over magic-users, and the way we played as a 'team' seemed to maximize their usefulness. There were times where the one would protect the other, and the opposite way around.
I appreciate it. It's highly informative and interesting to read and hear about these experiences. Thank you.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849104I appreciate it. It's highly informative and interesting to read and hear about these experiences. Thank you.
You're quite welcome! If there's anything in my meanderings that might be of use to you in your games, then please have it with my compliments! :)
Quote from: chirine ba kal;849093Sorry about the wall of text; I hope it helps... :)
It does! Thanks again. Awesome story BTW.
Quote from: RandallS;849080That's a good point, but the average RPG player I talk to today would likely have no idea what "Kriegspiel" was, let alone that there were rigid/strict and free variants and why the free variant was much more popular with the nineteenth century German officers. "rulings not rules" is a less accurate description that "Free Kriegspiel" but at least it communicates something to today's players.
But the problem is that it communicates something in my opinion that is very wrong; that rules either don't exist or aren't important, as opposed to "the referee's judgement IS the rules."
"When wargaming started in the 19th century the rules got so clumsy and elaborate that some folks came up with a version where the referee was the ultimate authority over all things, and any charts or tables or dice or suchlike were merely for the convenience of the referee. They called it "Free Kriegspiel," and that's the tradition that original D&D came from; the referee's judgement, first and foremost, is what describes the reality of the game world."
78 words. Considering that the average person speaks at 100 words per minute, not a bad "elevator pitch."
Honestly, I never bought the whole "not special" thing for any class. What makes ANY character special is what you do with it.
Robilar, a fighter, was the first character to reach the bottom of Greyhawk Castle. I think that makes him pretty damn special.
Special is as special does. Ask Chirine about the Red Cataphracts.
I'd say in order for a description of Free Kriegspiel to convey the workings of a ref in the RPG context though, you need to include the fact that referees were supposed to make impartial judgments, at least by default.
Also, FK wasn't accepted without controversy IIRC.
Quote from: Arminius;849137I'd say in order for a description of Free Kriegspiel to convey the workings of a ref in the RPG context though, you need to include the fact that referees were supposed to make impartial judgments, at least by default.
Also, FK wasn't accepted without controversy IIRC.
I suppose, but to my mind "referee" implies impartial in the very word.
And nothing has EVER been accepted without controversy.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;849102I can understand the Fighter getting the short end of the stick, too.
I've heard this online, but not in actual play.
Fighter's get to mosh with the monsters. You can use any weapon and any armor so you're almost always first up to get magical items. You often get healing first in the party, rarely allowed to drop below half because you are the front line. And your sword does not run out of charges. Trying to guess when to cast your spell? Nope, your sword is good to go every round.
And Fighters have the HP to make mistakes, so you can be bolder and maybe even less cautious than other classes. Makes them so great a class for newbs or casual gamers.
Also, in NPC interactions, you don't have the deity baggage of the cleric or the sleepy time issues of the mage.
Fighters can fuck all day and party all night! :)
Quote from: Spinachcat;849156I've heard this online, but not in actual play.
I've had it happen in actual play. Now bear in mind, that I spent the last 30 years or so, pretty much being a DM/GM, so I'm not speaking as if I was the one 'marginalized' or some other kitschy phrasing. It was my observation of others playing, and in some cases outright avoiding the Fighter in D&D for 'being boring'.
And there was a lot of assumptions that no-name schmucks that you find guarding a castle were variously leveled Fighters, perpetuating the incorrect assumption that Fighters were chumps that anyone with a vague inkling on how to hold a sword was automatically one.
Let me also point out that it was never intended as an insult, but the Fighter has long been considered to be the 'Easy Class' to give to a beginner. Little choice, just roll to hit and your good. And I have a hard time believing that no one here has seen that one in person. Does that not raise an eyebrow? If a Fighter is as 'complex' as any other class, why would it be considered the first thing most players should get to introduce them to D&D?
Gronan, you have a special and unique view of the class, because you've been at a table where it was explained that you can do whatever you want as whatever class. But most of us have not, and we're limited to, as I already stated to Chirine, our perceptions and reading of the books we bought.
Doesn't mean no one has ever had fun with the Fighter, it's just that there's a lot of baggage that's been unfairly loaded onto the class' mighty and broad shoulders. But like the Trouper and Trooper that it is, it's taken that load and carried on over the years, soldiering on and still proving to be a contender and a fan favourite.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171Let me also point out that it was never intended as an insult, but the Fighter has long been considered to be the 'Easy Class' to give to a beginner. Little choice, just roll to hit and your good. And I have a hard time believing that no one here has seen that one in person. Does that not raise an eyebrow? If a Fighter is as 'complex' as any other class, why would it be considered the first thing most players should get to introduce them to D&D?
A fighter is a complex class -- just not complex in mechanics (no spells or weapons limits to worry about). The cleric is a complex class, but intermediate in mechanical complexity (some weapon limitations and some spells to learn about). The wizard is a complex class and is also complex in mechanics (lots of limitations on combat abilities and lots of spells to learn about). Any of the three original classes can be played in a complex manner, but the complexity of the mechanics one needs to learn varies. Of course, if one only sees and/or only thinks of the mechanics then one will likely miss this.
Old school, however, is isn't about the mechanics. The rules mechanics in old school rules are more for the GM than the players. If you just tell the GM what you are trying to do (and have a GM who understands there are no hard rules just incomplete guidelines for the GM that cover only the most general cases) the Fighter is both complex in what he can do and simple to actually play (mechanically).
QuoteGronan, you have a special and unique view of the class, because you've been at a table where it was explained that you can do whatever you want as whatever class. But most of us have not, and we're limited to, as I already stated to Chirine, our perceptions and reading of the books we bought.
I mainly play with new and causal players who do not have much interest in reading (let alone studying) rules. I tell all new players to simply pretend like they are their character and they in the situation in the game and to tell me what they want to do. I tell them I will tell them the results, what to roll, or warn them if it is something their character do to world/class knowledge would know was an obviously bad idea so they can decide if they want to try something else. They love fighters -- they have always been the most popular classes in my games. Clerics are next (like a fighter but with a few spells and can turn undead -- no one sees them as "healbots"). This has been true since I started playing D&D in 1975.
I sometimes wonder if most of the people who don't like fighters because they are not "complex" enough see characters not a "me in the game world, what would I do?" but as bundles of mechanical rules options that one uses by selecting the "right" mechanical rules option. There's nothing wrong with that, but I see no reason to ruin fighters for others by limiting them to a list of mechanical options -- especially not in a game intended for old school play.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;848837There seems to be a very distinct dichotomy between OSR people in forums and in blogs, and how they look at and approach the modern style of gaming. What I found strange was the 'mythology' that has grown up around how Gary, Dave, and Phil are supposed to have played, and how they ran their game sessions. There almost seems to be a sort of 'revealed wisdom of the prophets' about how they did things, and I didn't get a very positive reaction when I mentioned what I had seen in my time with them. I felt like the little boy who said "but the Emperor has no clothes!", which is why I started to back off the Internet to a great degree; I have no wish to be the one contradicting what almost seems like a question of faith.
We need to recognize that the OSR arose, in large part, as a fiercely reactionary movement against the dominance of modern play modes. People who enjoyed an old-school approach to RPGs felt alienated from the popular model, and resented it deeply. So it's unsurprising that they wanted to rally around some singular, codified vision and carry it into the struggle like a banner. "Just make some shit up" isn't an inspiring rallying cry to people who feel they're in a desperate ideological struggle.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;849110It does! Thanks again. Awesome story BTW.
You're very welcome, and thank you for the kind words!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;849128Honestly, I never bought the whole "not special" thing for any class. What makes ANY character special is what you do with it.
Robilar, a fighter, was the first character to reach the bottom of Greyhawk Castle. I think that makes him pretty damn special.
Special is as special does. Ask Chirine about the Red Cataphracts.
You 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. There were eight of them, plus an officer and a standard-bearer, and they were the 'Reds' because that's what I painted their tunics and cloaks. They had some comrades, a second identical unit, called the 'Blues' 'cause that's what they got painted in. Both had banners from the ancient FGU set of stick-on flags from the "Royal Armies of the Hyborian Age" rules.
We played a lot of "Chainmail", back in those days, and had everything from modest table-top games to some huge floor games in hotel meeting rooms. The Reds soon got one hell of a reputation, as they just never seemed to quit; they never failed morale checks, they never failed in charges and melees, and they soon became my justly-feared-by-opponents elite unit of battle-winning champions. Back in those days, we followed the suggestion by Tony bath of keeping records of what our units did on the table, and the 'regimental history' of the Reds soon overflowed their original 3 x 5 index card. They 'leveled up' pretty frequently, and soon became 'elite' soldiers by popular acclimation. Their simply appearing on a battlefield was considered cause for a morale check by their opponents, and people started building their armies with an eye to being able to fend them off if they rode to the attack. The Blues were always their juniors, as units, but the two became known as my Byzantine 'Old Guard', able to defend the Empire no matter what the odds.
I still have them.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;849141I suppose, but to my mind "referee" implies impartial in the very word.
And nothing has EVER been accepted without controversy.
I don't mind a little spirited discussion, but when I read the words about referees/ GMs needing to be stated as impartial, something in me just died.
I can't imagine a style of game play where this isn't the case. Phil and Dave at their deadliest were always impartial, and we were the same way all those hot summer nights at Coffman. I'm geniunely having trouble getting my head around the idea that this needs to be said explictly; no disrespect intended to the poster, of course!!! I'm just astounded and flabbergasted.
Maybe I'm just too old for this, anymore. May be it's time to get the Great Western OO stuff back out of the garage...
Quote from: Haffrung;849192We need to recognize that the OSR arose, in large part, as a fiercely reactionary movement against the dominance of modern play modes. People who enjoyed an old-school approach to RPGs felt alienated from the popular model, and resented it deeply. So it's unsurprising that they wanted to rally around some singular, codified vision and carry it into the struggle like a banner. "Just make some shit up" isn't an inspiring rallying cry to people who feel they're in a desperate ideological struggle.
Ah! Thank you for the explanation! Now I
know I'm too old for this...
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849098Which is what actually makes the Fighter feel 'not special'. Because back in the day, the only class (out of two) that had defined special features, it was assumed (very much incorrectly) that anyone could be a Fighter. The average peasant fending you off with a stick was one such creature for a lot of players.
While Wizards were a special group, they were supposedly rare and old and long bearded because of the intense training needed to be a wizard.
Remember a lot of us did not have Mr. Gygax, Mr. Arnenson or Wesely to guide us as to what they meant, we only had the books and our pathetic and meagre imaginations and readings of the rules in front of us. And frankly, a lot of players to this very day has very little knowledge about medieval weapons work and just how much training is necessary to be barely decent with a whole slew of personal weaponry. As much as a wizard would need to study. Even the Cleric would get a lot of training, but instead of studying for spells, part of their day would be weapons training, followed by readings of the Prayers needed to petition their God(s) of choice to grant them a sliver of Their Power.
And then the Thief came out, the true 'everyman' (as frankly, learning how to sneak, or climbing the rest is less trained skill, more practice and experience, outside of thieves' tools) and they had a whole slew of special abilities. The Ranger popped up, the Paladin, Cavalier, Bard, Druid, for the longest time, the Fighter seemed to be getting the shortest end of the stick.
Gronan and Chirine, you have unique experiences, more so than any one of us here, because you got to play with the originators of the game, they could tell you what they meant! The rest of us poor schlubs didn't and had to make do with our own or the interpretations of our friends.
(This is my recounting of my personal experience over the two Canadian provinces and the some fifty to one hundred other games I've talked and gamed with since the mid 80's. I've known, peripherally what D&D was since about 82-83, and I experienced snippets of the game until the point I really got into it at about 1989. Not to be treated as anything more than anecdotal.)
The game materials were enough for me. I started playing in 1980, and I never had the pleasure of meeting Gary, Dave, Phil or any other original old school players. I have never been to Gen Con either. So what?
The Moldvay basic rulebook was what I had to work with, and with that, some graph paper, dice, imagination, and some friends I was running and playing D&D. By the rules, all characters were generated 3d6 in order with a bit of swapping for your prime requisite.
The fun of the game was that, at first level, no one was really that special. N00b adventurers were a dime a dozen and only a few ever returned from the dangerous places they explored. Thus, your goal as a player was to help your character
become special by surviving the trials of adventure. The mechanics representing the character were only of marginal interest. What is the point of getting excited over rolling an 18 STR if your character dies in a pit trap 20 minutes into the first session?
My fighters felt special because they had a better chance to survive than magic users & thieves. :) They were not all the same. Some were barbarians like Conan or Fafhrd, others were stylish gentlemen such as Athos or D'Artagnan. Mechanically, there was little if any difference in how they interacted with the game world, but the way they were played made all the difference.
I didn't even get a look at AD&D until 83 when my dad took me to K&K toys for my birthday and told me to grab whatever I wanted. I got the 3 core books, the FF, Deities & Demigods, and a fat stack of modules.
I guess the main point here is that, I wasn't taught the game by someone who presented the mechanics as some kind of holy grail and the only thing that matters about the game.
Quote from: Haffrung;849192We need to recognize that the OSR arose, in large part, as a fiercely reactionary movement against the dominance of modern play modes. People who enjoyed an old-school approach to RPGs felt alienated from the popular model, and resented it deeply. So it's unsurprising that they wanted to rally around some singular, codified vision and carry it into the struggle like a banner. "Just make some shit up" isn't an inspiring rallying cry to people who feel they're in a desperate ideological struggle.
I would argue that it was a perceived dominance, which in a lot of cases was likely in their minds.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171It was my observation of others playing, and in some cases outright avoiding the Fighter in D&D for 'being boring'.
I believe you.
Perhaps its because my 35+ years as DM has been Classic D&D and 4e with very little involvement with 2e/3e. Also, like RandallS, most of my players don't crack the books so just sitting down and playing is very enticing when it comes to the Fighter.
Also, Fighter = Dwarf for much of the time, and there's usually a player or two who wants to play Gimli, Conan Gimli, Scottish Gimli or Thorin. In 0e-2e, Dwarf = Fighter 90% of the time. Which is odd because Dwarf Thieves were really great in AD&D.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171Let me also point out that it was never intended as an insult, but the Fighter has long been considered to be the 'Easy Class' to give to a beginner.
I agree. That's a feature, not a bug.
It's even codified in 13th Age where classes are presented least complex to most complex so players can pick classes in their comfort zone.
Until 4e, I always handed the Dwarf or the Fighter to any kids joining the game for exactly the reasons you stated.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171Little choice, just roll to hit and your good.
That is one way of playing the Fighter. I have certainly seen many players do this, but I have seen many really get into the stunts / tactics / bravado / war dance of free form abstract D&D combat.
BTW, especially the kids.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171And I have a hard time believing that no one here has seen that one in person.
I have not, but I can't speak for anyone other than myself. I know its a popular online conversation which FOR ME has been surprising.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;849216I don't mind a little spirited discussion, but when I read the words about referees/ GMs needing to be stated as impartial, something in me just died.
Have you ever been to a pee wee little league or youth soccer where the parents go batshit on the referee when their precious Timmy gets ruled against? Even if little Timmy was acting like a cocksmock?
I am unsure if any mainstream RPG product ever came out and said "GMs are supposed to provide the fun to the players by catering to them", but that is certainly a strong belief by many players. Sadly, the RPGA Living Campaign and Pathfinder Organized Play is built upon "RPG as teacup ride" where the PCs and players are rarely, if ever, really challenged.
What's weird is how the "RPG as teacup ride" lost many RPG fans who went to Magic or Warhammer where every game is Win, Lose or Draw. Fortunately, there are still RPGers who want to play RPGs for a challenge and those players do appreciate impartial GMs and consider that impartiality a major part of the fun.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849265I would argue that it was a perceived dominance, which in a lot of cases was likely in their minds.
I think it was more a market dominance--I think the role of 3E, and the reaction against both its flaws and its overall philosophy, is often underestimated in consideration of the OSR. And 3E/d20
was a dominant force for a while there.
Also, I think Ryan "Evil Master of d20 Propaganda" Dancey got everyone concerned about 'market share' and 'network externalities' even when they didn't need to be. :)
Quote from: Spinachcat;849270I agree. That's a feature, not a bug.
I believe that it's both. The feature is that "low mechanical engagement" classes (as I've come to call them) exist; the bug is that they're overly associated with certain archetypes, so you often don't have a 'simple spellcaster' or a 'complex warrior' available to players who want them.
4E made a big mistake by not providing LME options out of the gate; that was one of several unnecessary barriers it erected to casual players. But one of its strengths, IMO, is that it dissociated the level of mechanical engagement required from the character concept in many cases. 13th Age strikes a good balance in this regard, although there are still some holes that could be filled in.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;849024I'll try to answer this - you may want to have a look at my YouTube videos of a game session we ran. It was a true three-dimensional game, and I ran it like I run everything. Please have a look; it might explain what I do better then I can... :)
I can't for the life of me think why, after seeing your signature multiple times, I didn't click on the youtube link until you brought it up here. :o
QuoteArneson - Keep play fast and furious. If players are busy playing, they'll have more fun and you'll all have a better time.
After some suggestions from another forum I ended up moving all the mechanics off stage/behind the screen so everything that goes between the players and the referee is in natural language and I noticed the pace of the game accelerated rapidly. I really had to keep things fast and furious. In a given four hour session they ended up doing more than usually happens in 8 hours in a game where the players are thinking about the rules.
Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed response. I printed out a good portion of that post and stuck in the front of my game prep binder.
Quote from: Spinachcat;849270Have you ever been to a pee wee little league or youth soccer where the parents go batshit on the referee when their precious Timmy gets ruled against? Even if little Timmy was acting like a cocksmock?
Yes, both as a child and as a parent. It's why my kids only participated in these kinds of events if they were having fun; if this kind of thing happened, and it stopped being fun, they would leave and I would pull my financial support.
Quote from: NathanIW;849281I can't for the life of me think why, after seeing your signature multiple times, I didn't click on the youtube link until you brought it up here. :o
After some suggestions from another forum I ended up moving all the mechanics off stage/behind the screen so everything that goes between the players and the referee is in natural language and I noticed the pace of the game accelerated rapidly. I really had to keep things fast and furious. In a given four hour session they ended up doing more than usually happens in 8 hours in a game where the players are thinking about the rules.
Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed response. I printed out a good portion of that post and stuck in the front of my game prep binder.
Oh! Well, have a look, and see what you think. I tried to give people a better idea of what it is we do in the basement... :)
Yep; moving the nuts and bolts out of sight and off-screen really does speed the game up. It does make for more of a challenge for the GM, but I like that, personally.
And you are very welcome, too. I'm hoping that I can offer some handy tips for people to use; we tried a lot of things, back in the day, and some worked and some didn't... :)
The RULES for an OD&D fighter may be simple, but since "anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted," you're wide open.. especially since it was FIGHTERS, not clerics, magic users, or thieves who were the star of every Errol Flynn movie ever, every King Arthur movie ever, every medieval costume drama from "El Cid" to "The Vikings" to "Prince Valiant" ever.
And in fall of 1973, just a couple months before D&D went up for sale, Richard Lester's version of "The Three Musketeers" hit the movie theaters.
Not trying to sound snarky, but essentially we didn't need rules to tell us we could do cool things with our fighters, and virtually the entire corpus of films, literature, and TV shows D&D swiped from had fighters as the hero.
Really, the huge emphasis on magic users in fantasy books started in the mid to late 80s.
EDIT: We play as we do/played as we did not because we played with Arneson, Gygax, and Barker, but because we partook in the same sources of "This is fantasy swashbuckling adventure" that they did. I started reading Conan BEFORE I read Lord of the Rings. Fighters are Heroes, wizards are targets.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;849216I don't mind a little spirited discussion, but when I read the words about referees/ GMs needing to be stated as impartial, something in me just died.
Part of that is, I believe, history that 'just happened.'
In the late 70s and early 80s TSR switched their marketing to the junior high and high school market. I talked to Jim Ward last GaryCon, and he confirmed that it wasn't just coincidence, they made a deliberate decision to do this.
Which makes eminent amounts of sense; it's a marketing truism that the 11 to 20 age bracket has a fairly high disposable income. Not TOTAL income, mind you. But what 14 year old Johnny gets for mowing lawns is entirely his money to spend for fun (usually).
So, yeah, go where the money is.
But take a bunch of 14 year old boys (who are feral little beasts at the best of times) and give them a pretense of "authority," even as ephemeral an authority as being the "Dungeon Master," and remove adult supervision, and what do you get?
Hint: We've all read
Lord of the Flies.And later on some of these kids grew up and went into the game industry and carried those memories of 14 year old games with them. This is where you get Skip Williams, working for TSR and going on about "rules to protect the players from the arbitrary whims of the referee.
Whereas the FKR response is "If you don't trust the referee don't play with them."
And it's really amazing to me how many people, at least online, are willing to weep and wail about stuff that happened in games in junior high school into their 20s or even 30s.
It's one reason why, after much thought, I've come up (per Azimov) with
"Mornard's Three Laws of RPG Rules:"
1) The rules cannot fix stupid
2) The rules cannot fix asshole
3) Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 14 years old does not constitute a need to change the rules
Quote from: chirine ba kal;849216I don't mind a little spirited discussion, but when I read the words about referees/ GMs needing to be stated as impartial, something in me just died.
I can't imagine a style of game play where this isn't the case. Phil and Dave at their deadliest were always impartial, and we were the same way all those hot summer nights at Coffman. I'm geniunely having trouble getting my head around the idea that this needs to be said explictly; no disrespect intended to the poster, of course!!!
No offense taken. Impartiality is where I came from, too--although as I wrote earlier, I did have a few do-overs. But over the years, and especially in the last decade-plus it's become clear that a large contingent of modern gamers don't even understand impartiality as a baseline. (Case in point (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/3gvf6w/tomorrow_i_kill_my_first_pc_im_excited_and_a/), but don't say I didn't warn you.)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;849273I believe that it's both. The feature is that "low mechanical engagement" classes (as I've come to call them) exist; the bug is that they're overly associated with certain archetypes, so you often don't have a 'simple spellcaster' or a 'complex warrior' available to players who want them.
I've never been able to create a complex fighter class that worked in my old school rules because:
a) It is next to impossible (for me, at least) to come up with
realistic fighter "powers/maneuvers" that cannot already be done by the standard fighter and as I refuse to limit the standard fighter to make a complex fighter viable, there is a problem. Especially when getting just getting hit and damage bonuses at certain actions at various levels (to actions that any standard fighter can try without the bonuses at any level) does not seem to satisfy those who want complex fighters. They seem to wanted siloed off abilities that only their complex fighter class gets. That's just incompatible with the standard old school D&D fighter.
b) I want fast abstract combat that does not need minis and battlemats/terrain. Most of the complex fighter classes I've seen that work in "new school" games all but require minis and battlemats or their equivalent.
There may be a way to do this that does not have problems A & B and still satisfies those looking for a complex fighter, but I have not been able to find it.
Old School today is largely what I had been saying Old School ought to be, since at least 2008. Welcome to Pundit's World.
What is old school?
Not giving a hoot what So-and-So says is "old school."
Weren't no such thing back in the day!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171Gronan, you have a special and unique view of the class, because you've been at a table where it was explained that you can do whatever you want as whatever class. But most of us have not, and we're limited to, as I already stated to Chirine, our perceptions and reading of the books we bought.
That may be special, but it's far from unique. It didn't seem all that unusual that I was introduced to the game without reading any books. Indeed, the usual thing in my experience was that buying the book or boxed set for a new RPG made one by default the GM; the players typically learned what the deal was from the GM.
Quote from: Phillip;850800What is old school?
Not giving a hoot what So-and-So says is "old school."
Weren't no such thing back in the day!
"Pan did not care at all about form, which of course is the best form of all."
Quote from: RandallS;849322I've never been able to create a complex fighter class that worked in my old school rules because:
a) It is next to impossible (for me, at least) to come up with realistic fighter "powers/maneuvers" that cannot already be done by the standard fighter and as I refuse to limit the standard fighter to make a complex fighter viable, there is a problem. Especially when getting just getting hit and damage bonuses at certain actions at various levels (to actions that any standard fighter can try without the bonuses at any level) does not seem to satisfy those who want complex fighters. They seem to wanted siloed off abilities that only their complex fighter class gets. That's just incompatible with the standard old school D&D fighter.
b) I want fast abstract combat that does not need minis and battlemats/terrain. Most of the complex fighter classes I've seen that work in "new school" games all but require minis and battlemats or their equivalent.
There may be a way to do this that does not have problems A & B and still satisfies those looking for a complex fighter, but I have not been able to find it.
FWIW I just wrote a few ideas of my own (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/08/the-flexible-fighter-easy-combat-stunts.html), but it might not be to everyone's tastes.
Basically, I would allow a fighter with multiple attacks to use those additional attacks as "strong attack", "parry", "dodge", "precise attack", etc.
So basically, while anyone can parry, the Fighter can attack AND parry in the same turn. While anyone can hit the head, the fighter does so without a penalty. And so on. No need for minis, etc.
The fighter gets more options. He chooses moves, like the wizard chooses spells.
Someone somewhere surely has a retroclone that uses this, I'm sure.
"Old School" means I like it.
That's what everybody thinks, but I'm old enough to mean it.
:D
I 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
Old school is playing a role-playing game like it's a CLUE board game.
Quote from: Batman;851039- 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.
I don't think I've ever seen that except in a computer game; what non-old-school RPG are you thinking of?
Quote from: rawma;852324I don't think I've ever seen that except in a computer game; what non-old-school RPG are you thinking of?
It was something our DM enforced when we played AD&D and early 3.0 games. He said getting a extra HP and automatically getting better at accuracy, damage, and avoiding attacks in a span of a few minutes was too video game-y.
Quote from: Batman;852347It was something our DM enforced when we played AD&D and early 3.0 games. He said getting a extra HP and automatically getting better at accuracy, damage, and avoiding attacks in a span of a few minutes was too video game-y.
I 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.
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.
Quote from: NathanIW;852838Probably because you want 'old school' to be a historical category rather than describing an approach, set of expectations or a community in operation today?
What I "want"? As opposed to what various outspoken postmodern grognards on Internet message boards want?
Some people who play old school games focus on game mechanics and relative balance, and some don't. "Old school" isn't some monolithic gaming hivemind.
Quote from: NathanIWWhen 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.
Beyond its formation of the D&D hobby and industry, OD&D is largely culturally irrelevant. It's never had the popularity or market share of Basic D&D, AD&D, or 3e.
And what makes a game largely relevant, is having large numbers of people playing it. That has always been the way of things.
Quote from: NathanIWHint: 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.
Surely you realize that's only a small subset of what "old school" gaming entails. One approach? That's it? How limited.
Again, old school isn't some monolithic hivemind.....even if the grogs seem hellbent on trying to focus their "onetruewayism" on old school games, and condemn other ways of playing these games as "badwrongfun".
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;852836"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'. :)
+1
Modern "Old School" bears little resemblance to how I played BiTD (84-85 for me), it bears little resemblance to how most legacy groups who never stopped playing still play, and it bears little resemblance to the module-centric play of the pre-OSR AD&D community (eg on Dragonsfoot) for whom the model is GDQ and A1-4 far more than Wilderlands. But modern "Old School" is a distinct and - for me - enjoyable play style.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;852846What I "want"? As opposed to what various outspoken postmodern grognards on Internet message boards want?
Some people who play old school games focus on game mechanics and relative balance, and some don't. "Old school" isn't some monolithic gaming hivemind.
Beyond its formation of the D&D hobby and industry, OD&D is largely culturally irrelevant. It's never had the popularity or market share of Basic D&D, AD&D, or 3e.
And what makes a game largely relevant, is having large numbers of people playing it. That has always been the way of things.
Surely you realize that's only a small subset of what "old school" gaming entails. One approach? That's it? How limited.
Again, old school isn't some monolithic hivemind.....even if the grogs seem hellbent on trying to focus their "onetruewayism" on old school games, and condemn other ways of playing these games as "badwrongfun".
I see this all the time - that there are some group of grognards that insist that "old school" is a term made relevant because
everybody played that way!
Link please? I flat out don't believe this exists. I see this accusation all the time, but never actually run across this in the wild. If it is such a common belief it shouldn't be difficult to prove that this is espoused by big names in the OS scene.
I mean, sure, I'm guessing that there somewhere someplace is a crank case who says that, but not that it is believed as a thing by anyone considered
influential.
I think this is a non-reason that is promulgated far and wide by people who are stung that a desirable term like "old-school" has been associated with a style of play that they happen not to enjoy, and that's about it.
As for the idea that OD&D isn't really relevant because it didn't sell as much as later editions?
I suppose that BB King isn't worth discussing in music, because he never sold like Justin Beiber. And sales = relevance :rotfl:
Quote from: EOTB;852872I see this all the time - that there are some group of grognards that insist that "old school" is a term made relevant because everybody played that way!
Link please? I flat out don't believe this exists.
I can tell you, it's not how everyone played, cuz I didn't.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;852846What I "want"? As opposed to what various outspoken postmodern grognards on Internet message boards want?
Your main complaint seems to be that some people on the internet are trying to falsely portray a single approach to OD&D as being far more prevalent (or even universal) in the 70s than it actually was. And for some reason you think this is connected with being "postmodern" which makes zero sense at all as there's nothing stopping a died-in-the-wool Cartesian from making that error.
QuoteSome people who play old school games focus on game mechanics and relative balance, and some don't. "Old school" isn't some monolithic gaming hivemind.
No, but it is more like a genre. A body of expectations. You can have some variance, but if you look at this thread you'll find a remarkable sense of clarity about what the term means when it is used in regards to RPGs. The only people who seem to have an issue are those who mistakenly think it's a historical category.
QuoteBeyond its formation of the D&D hobby and industry, OD&D is largely culturally irrelevant. It's never had the popularity or market share of Basic D&D, AD&D, or 3e.
So now imagine there was a group of people who didn't like the majority approach of the late 90s, early 00s on and wanted to create a community of like minded individuals who wanted to preserve, reconstruct and extend an approach. They got together on the internet, on message boards, social media, blogs etc., and got busy playing, writing and publishing material. And their favoured approach was heavily impacted by the free wheeling take on OD&D.
These people started using terms like Old School and the acronym OSR. You may not like that they functionally coopted a term that you would have rather been used as a historical category, but language doesn't work based on our likes, but on usage. And when it comes to RPGs, old school describes an approach to play that is important to people now and is not a historical category about how other people played back then. If you come across someone who tries to claim that a single approach was prevalent in the early days of the hobby, they're just factually wrong. 'Old School' in regards to RPGs is about reconstructing (or preserving) an approach to play that was likely in the minority during the 70s and definitely in the minority when 3rd edition D&D came out. It's about what people have been doing for the last 15 years or so far, far more than how people played games in the 70s.
QuoteSurely you realize that's only a small subset of what "old school" gaming entails. One approach? That's it? How limited.
It being limited is a strength, not a weakness. If the term just 'meant every game and approach from the 70s and early 80s' it would tell you nothing about a given work, blog or thread. By being narrow you tell everyone what to expect. It actually communicates something when you see the word old school in a blog title or an OSR logo on something.
QuoteAgain, old school isn't some monolithic hivemind.....even if the grogs seem hellbent on trying to focus their "onetruewayism" on old school games, and condemn other ways of playing these games as "badwrongfun".
Except they don't. Usually people are just saying that just because an approach is old doesn't mean it's automatically worse than a more current game. If they comment on a given game they don't play at all. Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about? I could see it happening every now and again by someone who is looking for a fight, but most OSR types are so used to being a tiny minority in the hobby since back during the d20 boom that they won't bother.
Or does someone simply advocating for the strengths of their approach mean that you consider them to be condemning the approach of others?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;852884I can tell you, it's not how everyone played, cuz I didn't.
I'm asking for a link to this supposed group of influential OSR Grognards that proclaim everyone back then gamed in a similar fashion to what is now being promoted.
How you gamed or didn't game doesn't really come into the picture...we all know that not everyone gamed that way.
Which is why I don't believe anyone is saying otherwise. It's a rather stupid straw man.
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.
Very common, seen it a lot in many games, D&D and others.
Never liked it myself and used to not allow it.
But more relaxed now..
Neither Dave nor Gary handed out XP until the PCs were safe at home, so leveling up mid adventure is definitely NOT old school.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;853136Neither Dave nor Gary handed out XP until the PCs were safe at home, so leveling up mid adventure is definitely NOT old school.
Just because Dave and Gary didn't game a certain way, doesn't mean it's not "old school".
It just means that the guys who created D&D ran the game in their own personal way.
But never presume to think that you know how all or most old school games have been run or are run.
Enough of this grognardian hivemind shit.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;853144Just because Dave and Gary didn't game a certain way, doesn't mean it's not "old school".
It just means that the guys who created D&D ran the game in their own personal way.
But never presume to think that you know how all or most old school games have been run or are run.
Enough of this grognardian hivemind shit.
But that's the crux of the OSR. It assumes that everyone played the same way in the 'good old days'. I'm anecdotal proof that we didn't. Unless of course, people assume that AD&D isn't 'old school' enough, at which one has to ask, what IS old school.
And THAT puts us back at square one of this entire mess of a thread. (But at least it's an easy mess to deal with.)
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;853144But never presume to think that you know how all or most old school games have been run or are run.
Sorry, but if a game, even during the 70s wasn't like the approach Gronan's is describing then it isn't Old School as the term has come to be used. Is it fair? No. But that's because it's about the promotion of one particular approach. Gronan's doesn't need to know what every game that was run in the 70s was like in order to know what old school is.
I'm sure by late 1974 people were running OD&D in a way that would not be described today as old school. Why? Because the term isn't about categorizing history but about what people are doing with a particular approach today.
QuoteEnough of this grognardian hivemind shit
Why? Does having your game or approach excluded by big meany heads on the internet hurt your feelings?
It's actually not a big deal that some meanies on the internet said your elf game of choice isn't Old School. Arguing that the definition of old school when it comes to RPGs should be changed to accommodate your preferences is just a waste of energy. And if we did all suddenly start using old school to mean every possible approach present in the 70s and 80s we'd lose the utility of clarity that the term currently has by being so focused.
It is a very good thing that the term actually means something specific. That when you read a blog post describing a game as old school you know exactly what they mean. That when you see an OSR logo on a blog that you'll immediately know the kind of content you might find there.
I would never want to trade that utility in just to protect the feelings of some people who can't seem to get past this idea that if it's from the 70s or 80s, then it must be old school. That's just not what the term has come to mean when it comes to RPGs.
My favorite RPG from the 70s (RuneQuest) isn't what people are usually talking about when they say Old School. And that's totally fine. When people do talk about RQ add old school, they're usually going to either talk about how the skill system represents a departure from old school play or how to mitigate its impact in order to run the game in a more old school approach. You'll see people recommend that only the referee can call for skill rolls and other similar techniques needed to run RQ in a more old school way. If 'old school' was just some generic term for games from the first ten years of the hobby then the people wouldn't have anything to go on in terms of knowing what to recommend.
Old school is what ever I was playing before half my current players were born. ;)
I actually do think it is useful the "old school" as in OSR has come to have a certain connotation. Even if it is not true that all gamers played that way back in the day. It helps to know what a game that is advertised as "old school" may be like.
We often played that Experience Points handed out on the spot but equally often at the end of the session. Leveling up might happen when you crossed the exp threshold, or it might require going into town and training. It all depended on the whims of the DM. So even within our group back in the '70s and early '80s there was no one way of playing.
This reminds me hilariously of the time some clown insisted Gary Gygax was the Egg of Coot even after being shown several places where Dave Arneson said in writing that was not the case.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;853173But that's the crux of the OSR. It assumes that everyone played the same way in the 'good old days'.
No, it assumes that one particular approach among many is what they are interested in talking about.
QuoteI'm anecdotal proof that we didn't. Unless of course, people assume that AD&D isn't 'old school' enough, at which one has to ask, what IS old school.
Old school is not a historical category. It's a set of common elements and expectations for an approach to RPGs that people have preserved, reconstructed and extended because they are interested in playing, writing about or discussing that approach in the hear and now.
Is AD&D "old school enough"? I think the answer is probably, but I'm sure many people play it with an approach that is not old school. I know I had great fun in a long AD&D game that wasn't old school at all. I've also played in games of AD&D that were incredibly old school. If some one ever says it was not old school enough, I would assume they are talking about a subset of possible AD&D play. Perhaps even the default given the marketing of AD&D as an act of standardizing the rules for commercial reasons. But that's more about how TSR was selling a product than the variety of ways it was played.
One thing I will say for sure is that the 1970s publication date of some AD&D books does not automatically qualify it or any game as old school.
QuoteAnd THAT puts us back at square one of this entire mess of a thread. (But at least it's an easy mess to deal with.)
This thread hasn't been a mess at all. It been a big list of the elements people include when they are talking about old school in terms of RPGs. There's been some debate about the priority of different elements but people have largely been on the same page.
And then you have those who think it's about all approaches to all games from the 70s or 80s who are all confused or offended that a group would dare use a term that excludes their approach.
Quote from: NathanIW;853208Sorry, but if a game, even during the 70s wasn't like the approach Gronan's is describing then it isn't Old School as the term has come to be used. Is it fair? No. But that's because it's about the promotion of one particular approach. Gronan's doesn't need to know what every game that was run in the 70s was like in order to know what old school is.
Right;
promotion.
It's social
marketing by modern day grognards, acting as a misrepresentation of gaming reality to suit the gaming preferences of these very same grogs. But it's epic bullshit, and not to be taken at face value.
I remember the times I would receive PMs on sites like Dragonsfoot from other members who were into old school rpgs, but they hated dealing with the immature grognardian bullshit, hated dealing with narrow-minded suffocating zealotry masquerading as rpg authority. These grogs were usually
(but not always) "Gygaxians". And Heaven help you if you define "old school" in a different way or run an old school game in a way that doesn't fit the narrow confines of the "gaming Al-Qaeda". :rolleyes:
Quote from: NathanIWI'm sure by late 1974 people were running OD&D in a way that would not be described today as old school. Why? Because the term isn't about categorizing history but about what people are doing with a particular approach today.
Which people? Which approach? Not all players and DMs of old school games agree with the loudest voices on sites like Dragonsfoot or Knights & Knaves Alehouse. Not everyone is so dogmatic.
Quote from: NathanIWWhy? Does having your game or approach excluded by big meany heads on the internet hurt your feelings?
If you're gonna be a passive-aggressive little cocksmock, then you should just fuck right off to RPGnet. They love passive-aggressiveness there.
Quote from: NathanIWIt's actually not a big deal that some meanies on the internet said your elf game of choice isn't Old School. Arguing that the definition of old school when it comes to RPGs should be changed to accommodate your preferences is just a waste of energy. And if we did all suddenly start using old school to mean every possible approach present in the 70s and 80s we'd lose the utility of clarity that the term currently has by being so focused.
Misleading potential gamers about old school games is bad. When modern day grogs try to change the definition of old school games to accommodate
their preferences, that's bad.
Quote from: NathanIWIt is a very good thing that the term actually means something specific. That when you read a blog post describing a game as old school you know exactly what they mean. That when you see an OSR logo on a blog that you'll immediately know the kind of content you might find there.
I would never want to trade that utility in just to protect the feelings of some people who can't seem to get past this idea that if it's from the 70s or 80s, then it must be old school. That's just not what the term has come to mean when it comes to RPGs.
It's not about my feelings, you passive-aggressive little twat. It's about grogs
who try to co-opt language, solely in order
to accommodate their own personal preferences in rpgs. That's bad for gaming. :pundit:
Quote from: NathanIWMy favorite RPG from the 70s (RuneQuest) isn't what people are usually talking about when they say Old School. And that's totally fine. When people do talk about RQ add old school, they're usually going to either talk about how the skill system represents a departure from old school play or how to mitigate its impact in order to run the game in a more old school approach. You'll see people recommend that only the referee can call for skill rolls and other similar techniques needed to run RQ in a more old school way. If 'old school' was just some generic term for games from the first ten years of the hobby then the people wouldn't have anything to go on in terms of knowing what to recommend.
RuneQuest is unambiguously "old school".
It was published in the 1970's, and is one of the earlier arrivals in the rpg hobby. This game is the poster child for old school. It's not my fault when
(usually Gygaxian) grognards become epically butthurt when someone mentions that non-D&D roleplaying games from the mid-1970's to early 1990's could be legitimately old school.
RIFTS is old school. RuneQuest is old school. Traveller is old school. OD&D and AD&D are old school. The list goes on. And yes, some modern games that try to duplicate/clone these rpgs are old school as well.
Just please stop talking like you possess the monopoly on truth in regards to "old school play". You don't, so just cut it out.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;853272If you're gonna be a passive-aggressive little cocksmock, then you should just fuck right off to RPGnet. They love passive-aggressiveness there.
I'll be clear: You're being really childish. Whining that some big bad mean people went and stole a word and now you're going throw a big fit and call them things like "post modern" (not that it made any sense when you did so) or more recently, calling them "gaming Al Qaeda." And rant about their "narrow-minded suffocating zealotry masquerading as rpg authority" and their "grognardian hivemind shit." I think you're stuck in an us-vs-them mindset.
I think it's totally reasonable to feel less than thrilled that a subset of play from the 70s has come to be identified with the term "old school." Especially when one's favorite game or approach is excluded and the reasons for doing so seem arbitrary or nonsensical when you see "old school" as being a historical category. I don't think I'd advocate going off the deep end like you did though. When all they are trying to do is present, reconstruct, preserve, extend and
identify an approach to a game they like.
QuoteIt's about grogs who try to co-opt language, solely in order to accommodate their own personal preferences in rpgs.
What? People with an interest in something have found a term they like to us to describe their object of interest? In order to clearly describe what they want out of games, blogs, discussions and publications? What foul miscreants! What utter villians! They really are like Al Qaeda! :rolleyes:
QuoteJust please stop talking like you possess the monopoly on truth in regards to "old school play". You don't, so just cut it out.
There's a reason the historical category definition didn't end up being the one that stuck. The people actually involved in OSR stuff at least were talking about
something when they were using the term old school, but when you use it, you just have a useless historical category that can't actually say anything about the approach of play as any example will have a contradictory counter example.
Old school play? So no skill systems and skill systems. 3d6 in order and points buy. Specific rules and universal resolution mechanics. No game balance and very concerned with game balance. Resource management and infinite resources. Emergent story and intentional story. Fast combat and slow combat. System mastery needed and not needed. Rules as guidelines and rules as binding law. Description in natural language and primarily talking in system terms. The list does indeed go on and on.
The reason the historical category definition of old school lost out is that it says nothing more than just saying a range of dates. The people who were actually interested in a particular approach to the hobby went ahead and identified it and got busy designing, discussing, publishing and playing and now you're just left crying about how they stole a word and pretending it's somehow bad for the hobby.
Here's some things I wrote earlier in thread that might better explain where I'm coming from than my more recent posts:
Spoiler
The biggest weakness of the term "old school" and its derivations like OSR is that it has come to exclude approaches to play that were around in the 70s. Just think about that for a second. An approach like RuneQuest's skills (they existed as house rules to D&D prior to being made into their own rules) or the kill the gods and take their stuff groups that Ravenswing mentioned are all present very, very early.
I used to say that any definition of old school that excludes stuff from as early as that is stupid. But that was me being stupid and not recognizing that definitions just describe how something is already being used in communication. When we talk about "old school" or OSR, it's okay that it excludes things that are old but are different than what those using the terms are interested in. It's about communication so people are on the same page and that's it.
And:
I'm terribly pragmatic and anti-commercial when it comes to RPGs. I'm looking to get a pretty specific thing out of what people are producing and if they stick to this narrow subset of gaming that has come to be called "old school" then I know I'm at least dealing with something that is likely to interest me. There is simply too much out there to be able to pay attention to it all, so having a network of blogs, g+ communities, publishers, artists, designers, etc., that are on the same page about this definitely saves me from wasting time on wading through stuff I'm not interested in.
And:
Anyone who wants to raise a historical problem with old school excluding things (either explicitly or only implicitly by concentrating on D&D) like Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, etc., as well as approaches to included games like OD&D are factually correct in terms of history, but irrelevant in terms of what people who are actually into old school RPGs mean when they use the term.
It's like getting confused or angry by Art Nouveau not including the work of early Modernists. They're new right? They're "Nouveau" so why does Art Nouveau exclude them? Because Art Nouveau is a term about a social phenomenon (in this case, an art movement) and not a historical category for all art produced from 1890 to 1910.
And:
It is definitely a symptom that we're dealing with a social category rather than a historical category when you get people trying to exclude people. ... those who have embraced that practice have largely lost the plot. For them it seems to have stopped being about games and started being about identity. ... any creative endeavor that involves people can stop being about the thing itself and become about identity.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;852673Ah, 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...
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I do. I have a lot of his wares in my collection, too; he's been very supportive over the past twenty years... :)
An "old school > D&D" argument? Shit, is it Tuesday already?
Quote from: NathanIW;853286I'll be clear: You're being really childish. Whining that some big bad mean people went and stole a word and now you're going throw a big fit and call them things like "post modern" (not that it made any sense when you did so) or more recently, calling them "gaming Al Qaeda." And rant about their "narrow-minded suffocating zealotry masquerading as rpg authority" and their "grognardian hivemind shit." I think you're stuck in an us-vs-them mindset.
Could you not do that? Could you refrain from behaving like a condescending little twat? It's not cute; it's not darling; it's not anything.
Quote from: NathanIWI think it's totally reasonable to feel less than thrilled that a subset of play from the 70s has come to be identified with the term "old school." Especially when one's favorite game or approach is excluded and the reasons for doing so seem arbitrary or nonsensical when you see "old school" as being a historical category. I don't think I'd advocate going off the deep end like you did though. When all they are trying to do is present, reconstruct, preserve, extend and identify an approach to a game they like.
Tell me:
Which "favorite" game of mine is being excluded? I'd really like to know, because you're talking out of your ass here. Again.
Quote from: NathanIWWhat? People with an interest in something have found a term they like to us to describe their object of interest? In order to clearly describe what they want out of games, blogs, discussions and publications? What foul miscreants! What utter villians! They really are like Al Qaeda! :rolleyes:
You're behaving like an emotional infant. Don't be so passive-aggressive; it's obnoxious.
Quote from: NathanIWThere's a reason the historical category definition didn't end up being the one that stuck. The people actually involved in OSR stuff at least were talking about something when they were using the term old school, but when you use it, you just have a useless historical category that can't actually say anything about the approach of play as any example will have a contradictory counter example.
The main reason that the historical category definition didn't stick, is because the Gygaxians screamed the loudest and the longest on Internet forums.....for many years. They're not as large in number as they were 10 or 15 years ago, but they dominated discussions over the years with their hilariously loud, obnoxious overzealousness.
But not just that; games like RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Rifts, GURPS, and whatnot still enjoyed continual support over the years.....so their fans never became as crabby as the Gygaxians, when those self-same Gygaxian grogs had their favorite game discontinued.
Quote from: NathanIWOld school play? So no skill systems and skill systems. 3d6 in order and points buy. Specific rules and universal resolution mechanics. No game balance and very concerned with game balance. Resource management and infinite resources. Emergent story and intentional story. Fast combat and slow combat. System mastery needed and not needed. Rules as guidelines and rules as binding law. Description in natural language and primarily talking in system terms. The list does indeed go on and on.
Incorrect.
RuneQuest is "old school" by any logical measure. It was published in 1978, and uses a skill system.
GURPS was published in 1986, and uses 3d6.
These are very old games; there's nothing new about them. How else would you classify them; "new school"?
And the reason that the grogs would piteously whine that skill systems don't exist or belong in "old school" games, is that they tried to rewrite history. This attempt was a response to Gygaxian grog hatred of 3e. Back in the day, these grogs passionately hated 3e.....with the fire of a thousand burning suns, so they would obviously latch onto any minute difference...in order to make 3e seem tainted. One day, someone brought up 3e's skill system, so the grogs took that ball...and they rolled with it.
After that, people believed the
LIE that old school games didn't use unified mechanics or skill systems, because the grogs kept parroting that
LIE over and over again. This
LIE was perpetuated as part of a smear campaign against 3e
(by Gygaxian grogs). This
LIE was parroted so frequently, that the grogs
(and many of their audience) finally believed in the
LIE.
But it was all epic bullshit.
Quote from: NathanIWThe reason the historical category definition of old school lost out is that it says nothing more than just saying a range of dates. The people who were actually interested in a particular approach to the hobby went ahead and identified it and got busy designing, discussing, publishing and playing and now you're just left crying about how they stole a word and pretending it's somehow bad for the hobby.
See, this is why I can't really take you seriously. You're
STILL behaving like a passive-aggressive little twat.
Quote from: NathanIWHere's some things I wrote earlier in thread that might better explain where I'm coming from than my more recent posts:Spoiler
The biggest weakness of the term "old school" and its derivations like OSR is that it has come to exclude approaches to play that were around in the 70s. Just think about that for a second. An approach like RuneQuest's skills (they existed as house rules to D&D prior to being made into their own rules) or the kill the gods and take their stuff groups that Ravenswing mentioned are all present very, very early.
I used to say that any definition of old school that excludes stuff from as early as that is stupid. But that was me being stupid and not recognizing that definitions just describe how something is already being used in communication. When we talk about "old school" or OSR, it's okay that it excludes things that are old but are different than what those using the terms are interested in. It's about communication so people are on the same page and that's it.
And:
I'm terribly pragmatic and anti-commercial when it comes to RPGs. I'm looking to get a pretty specific thing out of what people are producing and if they stick to this narrow subset of gaming that has come to be called "old school" then I know I'm at least dealing with something that is likely to interest me. There is simply too much out there to be able to pay attention to it all, so having a network of blogs, g+ communities, publishers, artists, designers, etc., that are on the same page about this definitely saves me from wasting time on wading through stuff I'm not interested in.
And:
Anyone who wants to raise a historical problem with old school excluding things (either explicitly or only implicitly by concentrating on D&D) like Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, etc., as well as approaches to included games like OD&D are factually correct in terms of history, but irrelevant in terms of what people who are actually into old school RPGs mean when they use the term.
It's like getting confused or angry by Art Nouveau not including the work of early Modernists. They're new right? They're "Nouveau" so why does Art Nouveau exclude them? Because Art Nouveau is a term about a social phenomenon (in this case, an art movement) and not a historical category for all art produced from 1890 to 1910.
And:
It is definitely a symptom that we're dealing with a social category rather than a historical category when you get people trying to exclude people. ... those who have embraced that practice have largely lost the plot. For them it seems to have stopped being about games and started being about identity. ... any creative endeavor that involves people can stop being about the thing itself and become about identity.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;854383... condescending little twat ...emotional infant. ...passive-aggressive ...passive-aggressive little twat ...
When someone is being insulting to you without resorting to childish name calling or vulgarity, that isn't them being passive aggressive. It's just ridicule and sarcasm to show my low opinion of the things you say.
I've explained my position on this. And it actually doesn't contradict much of what you are saying when it comes to the facts of what went on (though you seem to think it was some grand tin foil hat conspiracy to silence the opposition). The difference is that I don't see the people who contributed to the definition of old school as horrible villains and liars, but as people who were interested in a particular thing wanting a label for what they are interested in.
I think they were smart to abandon the historical category definition of old school because it says very little and they wanted to talk about an actual thing rather than just games published from year X to year Y and future games that have things in common with those games. Now we have a term that actually says something specific. And if you want a community actually centred around something it's probably a good idea for the label you have for it to actually be about something and not be just a historical category of games published between two points in time.
As for RuneQuest, Rifts and a variety of other games that you think count as "old school" because of the publication date, I've already told you that the word has come to mean something other than a historical category. I get that you want the definition to be different and you can advocate for that and use it in a broader fashion and do your part to contribute your alternate usage, but don't be surprised when you end up talking about something other than what people mean by the term when it comes to RPGs.
I find your offense at the actions of the "post modern lying al Qaeda hivemind zealot grogs" to be hilarious and ridiculous. You present them as evil manipulators of language trying to foist a harmful agenda onto the hobby when in actuality they were people interested in a specific approach to play who simply didn't want the term they were using to become muddied from the sheer variety of play that occurred in the early days of the hobby.
They had a particular approach to RPGs in mind about which they wanted to discuss, play, share and publish. So they naturally excluded what didn't interest them. And their desires struck a chord with enough people that their approach saw surprisingly wide spread adoption. It was like there was something enjoyable about that particular subset of 70s play and it has become popularly associated with the term old school as a result.
To you they're the deceitful gaming al Qaeda who "LIE ... LIE ... LIE ... LIE ... LIE" :rolleyes:. I would suggest getting over your persecution complex and start to accept that it might be about
people talking about what they enjoy and wanting a term to describe it rather than some great evil they have inflicted upon you and the hobby.
Quote from: NathanIW;854470When someone is being insulting to you without resorting to childish name calling or vulgarity, that isn't them being passive aggressive. It's just ridicule and sarcasm to show my low opinion of the things you say.
Ridicule and sarcasm are both forms of passive-aggression.
And sarcasm is usually a dishonest expression of anger and contempt.
Quote from: NathanIW;854470I've explained my position on this. And it actually doesn't contradict much of what you are saying when it comes to the facts of what went on (though you seem to think it was some grand tin foil hat conspiracy to silence the opposition). The difference is that I don't see the people who contributed to the definition of old school as horrible villains and liars, but as people who were interested in a particular thing wanting a label for what they are interested in.
Oh, they aren't villains....but they most certainly attempted to co-opt language in order to fit their personal agendas in regards to gaming. It doesn't make them evil, but it's still an obnoxious thing to do.
Quote from: NathanIWI think they were smart to abandon the historical category definition of old school because it says very little and they wanted to talk about an actual thing rather than just games published from year X to year Y and future games that have things in common with those games. Now we have a term that actually says something specific. And if you want a community actually centred around something it's probably a good idea for the label you have for it to actually be about something and not be just a historical category of games published between two points in time.
You're partially right; it was smart. They wanted and needed a form of branding, and they got it. This new definition wasn't particularly accurate or honest, but frequent repetition made it into the new reality.
Quote from: NathanIWAs for RuneQuest, Rifts and a variety of other games that you think count as "old school" because of the publication date, I've already told you that the word has come to mean something other than a historical category. I get that you want the definition to be different and you can advocate for that and use it in a broader fashion and do your part to contribute your alternate usage, but don't be surprised when you end up talking about something other than what people mean by the term when it comes to RPGs.
I'll tell you what. I'll use the actual definition, you and some others will use the false definition....and I'll occasionally bother to point out when you or someone else insists on misinforming people.
Quote from: NathanIWI find your offense at the actions of the "post modern lying al Qaeda hivemind zealot grogs" to be hilarious and ridiculous. You present them as evil manipulators of language trying to foist a harmful agenda onto the hobby when in actuality they were people interested in a specific approach to play who simply didn't want the term they were using to become muddied from the sheer variety of play that occurred in the early days of the hobby.
I put gaming "Al-Qaeda" in quotes. Do you know why? As a joke, because
I'm not even the one who came up with that term. I don't think Kellri came up with this phrase, but he used it....as a joke/exaggeration of a subset of the retro gaming movement:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14272&page=6
Quote from: KellriIf anyone wants a piece of 'the Al Qaeda of the retro-gaming movement', c'mon on down to the Alehouse. This kind of halfwitted discussion will be just that much more grist for the mill.
Quote from: NathanIWThey had a particular approach to RPGs in mind about which they wanted to discuss, play, share and publish. So they naturally excluded what didn't interest them. And their desires struck a chord with enough people that their approach saw surprisingly wide spread adoption. It was like there was something enjoyable about that particular subset of 70s play and it has become popularly associated with the term old school as a result.
To you they're the deceitful gaming al Qaeda who "LIE ... LIE ... LIE ... LIE ... LIE" :rolleyes:. I would suggest getting over your persecution complex and start to accept that it might be about people talking about what they enjoy and wanting a term to describe it rather than some great evil they have inflicted upon you and the hobby.
Dude, a lie is a lie. Lying is not confined to rapists and war criminals. Intrinsically good people lie all the time, and still do things they shouldn't do. But if you point it out, people dig in their heels....and go apeshit. Sometimes ordinary people lie to others, and sometimes people instead lie to themselves......when reality becomes too much. If this situation doesn't involve blatant lies, then it is instead
EXTREME SELF-DELUSION (which is highly possible). But it doesn't change the fact that this entire situation is complete bullshit.
I mean, if I'm remembering correctly....there are even some conversion rules for
Boot Hill and
Gamma World characters
(for example) in the 1st Edition AD&D
Dungeon Master's Guide.
So if you try to tell me that a roleplaying game published in 1978 isn't "old school", then I will laugh at you.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;854522So if you try to tell me that a roleplaying game published in 1978 isn't "old school", then I will laugh at you.
From what I can see, "OSR" is generally used to an attempt refer to resurrection of a type of D&D primarily played 1974-77. It's not used to refer to non-D&D gaming of any period, and it's currently not even used much to refer to the kind of post-1978 D&D that was based on playing through modules, even though module-creation was the primary impetus for OSRIC. It's mostly about megadungeons (Blackmoor/Greyhawk) and hexcrawling (Wilderlands).
Not everyone even in 1974-77 was playing D&D in the manner imagined by the OSR, but judging by the material in early White Dwarf issues from eg Don Turnbull and Lew Pulsipher, it seems to have been fairly common in the small early-D&D community. But people playing Runequest and Traveller were often doing so specifically because they wanted something different from the things D&D offered, the things the OSR seeks to recreate.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;853293Why, yes, as a matter of fact I do. I have a lot of his wares in my collection, too; he's been very supportive over the past twenty years... :)
Awesome. I rolled up some characters using Different Worlds printing of EPT, and played D&D 3.0 with him when that came out. Sucks that they kept raising the rent on him. I keep meaning to visit his Wayzata store.
Sorry to hijack the thread everyone else.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;854522Ridicule and sarcasm are both forms of passive-aggression.
Both of those sound like regular old aggression to me.
QuoteAnd sarcasm is usually a dishonest expression of anger and contempt.
I don't understand what exactly about sarcasm is dishonest. It's unpleasant, and usually deliberately so, but it's not dishonest. Every culture and every language in the world includes sarcasm. It's a time honored method of displaying derision towards something.
QuoteOh, they aren't villains....but they most certainly attempted to co-opt language in order to fit their personal agendas in regards to gaming. It doesn't make them evil, but it's still an obnoxious thing to do.
The haven't co-opted it, they've opted it (I know, not a word). They had a chance to define the term in the public conciousness, as did your definition. Their definition succeeded.
QuoteYou're partially right; it was smart. They wanted and needed a form of branding, and they got it. This new definition wasn't particularly accurate or honest, but frequent repetition made it into the new reality.
Accurate will never be resolved, but please explain how it was dishonest? Because it doesn't accurately reflect "old" playstyles? Perhaps, and lots of "punk" rock wasn't made by actual holigans or whatever punk meant before the music style name was coined.
QuoteI'll tell you what. I'll use the actual definition, you and some others will use the false definition....and I'll occasionally bother to point out when you or someone else insists on misinforming people.
Words are social constructs. There's no "actual" definition. But if you want to keep insisting on this, it's your blood pressure, not ours.
QuoteDude, a lie is a lie. Lying is not confined to rapists and war criminals. Intrinsically good people lie all the time, and still do things they shouldn't do. But if you point it out, people dig in their heels....and go apeshit.
Or they disagree with you.
QuoteSometimes ordinary people lie to others, and sometimes people instead lie to themselves......when reality becomes too much. If this situation doesn't involve blatant lies, then it is instead EXTREME SELF-DELUSION (which is highly possible). But it doesn't change the fact that this entire situation is complete bullshit.
Which is more of a self-delusion, that "old school" means X because the consensus defines it as X, or the idea that you alone get to define its true meaning?
QuoteI mean, if I'm remembering correctly....there are even some conversion rules for Boot Hill and Gamma World characters (for example) in the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.
Interesting, but relevant how?
QuoteSo if you try to tell me that a roleplaying game published in 1978 isn't "old school", then I will laugh at you.
Have fun.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;854789Accurate will never be resolved, but please explain how it was dishonest? Because it doesn't accurately reflect "old" playstyles? Perhaps, and lots of "punk" rock wasn't made by actual holigans or whatever punk meant before the music style name was coined.
'Punk' meant prison catamite. Sadly for Malcolm McLaren he was unable to maintain the homosexual element of the music genre for very long once it became popular.
ZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz....
It's a good thing SL came to tell us the "actual" definition of old school when it comes to RPGs because the first half of the thread where people were largely on the same page because they were using a definition based on usage and having an actual discussion about game elements was just terrible. We definitely needed saving from that. Maybe next he can go help all those confused people who think digital has something to do with data when the "actual" definition is probably "related to fingers (digits).". That's what the word meant until the post modern computer al Qaeda coopted it for their own preferences.
:p
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;854829ZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz....
+1
(I've seen a similar forum conversation about the difference between clips and magazines. There too one guy was adamant that his opinion is the only true concept and that language does not have the capacity to change through time. I was not entertained.
Edit - it would be wicked funny if Lamb is the same guy that started that one going! :D)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;853173But that's the crux of the OSR. It assumes that everyone played the same way in the 'good old days'.
Not that I've seen. What it assumes is that everyone was NOT pushed to play the way the "new schools" of D&D push.
I would say that the real start of the "new school" was reliance on commercially made campaign settings...
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;853272And Heaven help you if you define "old school" in a different way or run an old school game in a way that doesn't fit the narrow confines of the "gaming Al-Qaeda".
Misleading potential gamers about old school games is bad. When modern day grogs try to change the definition of old school games to accommodate their preferences, that's bad.
RuneQuest is unambiguously "old school".
Uh, no. When it was published, it was advertised as a NEW approach, and sure struck me (very favorably) as that. It was probably one representative of the "simulation school" that Gygax lambasted -- "realism" being a big selling point -- but what most impressed me was the extent it was actually a
game system whereas AD&D was not really systematic but just an organically grown collection of heuristics.
Any school that identifies RQ with D&D is not a literally old school (and in any case "the old school" is actually newer than the 3e/4e D&D schools against which it arose in the first place as a reaction).
It has nothing to do with any "school" division I've ever seen among RQ players who have no dog in the D&D fight.
Quote from: Nikita;855449I would say that the real start of the "new school" was reliance on commercially made campaign settings...
Really? So Against the Giants, Keep on The Borderlands, et al, which was about 1979-81, and were sold with the expectation that players would use them in some way, thus relying on them to make a campaign out of them... So you're saying that anything after 1978 is New School?
Alright then.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;855455Really? So Against the Giants, Keep on The Borderlands, et al, which was about 1979-81, and were sold with the expectation that players would use them in some way, thus relying on them to make a campaign out of them... So you're saying that anything after 1978 is New School?
Alright then.
Pretty much so. For me the concept of having some kind of pre-made scenario books set in one game universe was a huge revelation back when I started.
Thinking this further, I think that after that the next term in school was "simulation and realism" brought forwards by RuneQuest. I'd put the step beyond that as invention of meta-plot that goes forwards according to commercial corporation that produced it.
Quote from: Nikita;855457Pretty much so. For me the concept of having some kind of pre-made scenario books set in one game universe was a huge revelation back when I started.
Thinking this further, I think that after that the next term in school was "simulation and realism" brought forwards by RuneQuest. I'd put the step beyond that as invention of meta-plot that goes forwards according to commercial corporation that produced it.
Personally, even with the era of pre-mades (Keep of The Borderlands came with an edition of D&D didn't it? I remember people talking about that) I've never actually used bought adventures back in the 80's. In fact, if it weren't for me being part of the D&D Adventures League thing for WoTC, I still wouldn't. I much prefer making worlds and settings rather than using a premade one.
Quote from: S'mon;854546From what I can see, "OSR" is generally used to an attempt refer to resurrection of a type of D&D primarily played 1974-77. It's not used to refer to non-D&D gaming of any period, ...
There's a lot you've missed seeing.
AD&D is definitely a big part of the OSR, along with the Basic/Etc. sets from 1981 on. ("Retro clones" OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord pretty well kicked off the phenomenon.)
A few years ago, I was one of a tiny few still using the OD&D booklets; not many more current gamers had ever even seen them. Most who hadn't weren't chomping on the bit to delve into
First Fantasy Campaign and
Best of The Dragon and
Chainmail to unearth the campaign form they had never used, wanted to use, or perhaps even been aware of.
The game of "OS or not?" -- categorizing this or that non-D&D game of any period -- is one I've seen all over the place. It was the bread and butter of the
Grognardia blog.
It's unfortunate, because it's a cause of piles of confusion and consternation.
"Skills aren't OS, so RuneQuest isn't," is the kind of pedantry that of course brings Empire of the Petal Throne, Traveller and the Advanced D&D Dungeon Masters Guide into the incoherent fray.
RuneQuest was not and is not part of ANY school of D&D. It's RuneQuest, and it can have (indeed has had) its own schools with their own concerns.
Traveller has plenty of "edition wars" without importing opinions on a completely different game that Traveller fans don't necessarily know or care about.
Quote from: Nikita;855457Pretty much so. For me the concept of having some kind of pre-made scenario books set in one game universe was a huge revelation back when I started.
Thinking this further, I think that after that the next term in school was "simulation and realism" brought forwards by RuneQuest. I'd put the step beyond that as invention of meta-plot that goes forwards according to commercial corporation that produced it.
Yep. AD&D, any edition, is "New School." When the game went from "do what you want" to "if you don't do this it's not Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" is when Old School died.
I also love all this shit about "Old School Taliban" and "Old School Grognard Mafia" and shit like that.
Like what anybody calls anything makes any FUCKING difference in how you play a dumbass elfgame at your table.
Quote from: Phillip;855452Uh, no. When it was published, it was advertised as a NEW approach, and sure struck me (very favorably) as that. It was probably one representative of the "simulation school" that Gygax lambasted -- "realism" being a big selling point -- but what most impressed me was the extent it was actually a game system whereas AD&D was not really systematic but just an organically grown collection of heuristics.
You are right and you are wrong. You are absolutely correct as far as Runequest 2nd edition compared to AD&D 1st from the perspective of a game circa 1979-1980.
However 2nd edition Runequest compared to Runequest 6 (I have both) definitely have has a different tenor and ton. So while it not like D&D old school it is Runequest old school. So what is "old school" depends on what you are talking about.
The recent interest in old school is because of the ability of the Internet to allow people with a narrow interest in a subject to readily communicate about the subject. Out of the millions there only may be a 1,000 who like the Lost Realm of Widgetland but if half of them get talking through the internet suddenly you can start doing things again with the Lost Realm of Widgetland that you couldn't do before.
The problem comes from the fact that while most long running games has an old school, as you pointed out the different old school are not the same kinds of games and appeal in different way. When combined with how the various gaming communities persisted over time the result that today we have several distinct communities of old school games. Communities that largely reflect the relative popularity of the game back in the day.
Some people here say AD&D is old school. I never considered AD&D for the most part to be Old School. Some aspects of it were, parts that were taken from Bx or 0D&D and incorporated.
0D&D or BX D&D were old school.
Old School isn't a specific system or even game, it's a style of play.
Quote from: Batman;855526Old School isn't a specific system or even game, it's a style of play.
That's not the people wanted to sell/promote OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and such want you (the general, not specific you) to believe.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;855529That's not the people wanted to sell/promote OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and such want you (the general, not specific you) to believe.
Bullshit. Where have you ever seen Stuart Marshall (OSRIC), Matt Finch (OSRIC, S&W) or Dan Proctor (Labyrinth Lord) say anything remotely close to that?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;855529That's not the people wanted to sell/promote OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and such want you (the general, not specific you) to believe.
I've never played those games, so I cannot really comment on them. For certain there are systems completely devoted to the Old School style but I still feel it's far more fundamental than specifics mechanics.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;855455Really? So Against the Giants, Keep on The Borderlands, et al, which was about 1979-81, and were sold with the expectation that players would use them in some way, thus relying on them to make a campaign out of them... So you're saying that anything after 1978 is New School?
Alright then.
Module-based play is the standard on eg Dragonsfoot, and OSRIC was originally to support that mode with new published modules, but the current OSR tends to emphasise the pre-module do it yourself approach rather than use of published adventures.
Quote from: Phillip;855464There's a lot you've missed seeing.
AD&D is definitely a big part of the OSR, along with the Basic/Etc. sets from 1981 on. ("Retro clones" OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord pretty well kicked off the phenomenon.)
BFRPG and OSRIC kicked things off, but I think AD&D (eg OSRIC) is a pretty small part of the current OSR, which centres around clones and derivatives of OD&D and B/X.
Quote from: Batman;855543I've never played those games, so I cannot really comment on them. For certain there are systems completely devoted to the Old School style but I still feel it's far more fundamental than specifics mechanics.
Style of play is one thing, but a system itself is going to have a built in style. Look at 4E.
Quote from: S'mon;855556BFRPG and OSRIC kicked things off, but I think AD&D (eg OSRIC) is a pretty small part of the current OSR, which centres around clones and derivatives of OD&D and B/X.
One thing I've noticed about lots of AD&D/OSRIC GMs is that they have largely abandoned the idea of rules as binding law that AD&D was originally marketed with as a means of unifying the player base and cutting Arneson out of royalties.
I listen to a ton of actual play podcasts and noticed most GMs very quickly adopt an off the top of their head approach rather than going with the described method in the rules. Many times you can't immediately tell whether they are playing OD&D, B/X or AD&D.
Quote from: S'mon;855556BFRPG and OSRIC kicked things off,
For those that are interested Hoard and Hordes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit) is fairly complete listing of all OSR Product targeting classic D&D to April of 2012 along with their publication date.
After that date it whatever the author takes notice of.
Quote from: EOTB;855542Bullshit. Where have you ever seen Stuart Marshall (OSRIC), Matt Finch (OSRIC, S&W) or Dan Proctor (Labyrinth Lord) say anything remotely close to that?
Promotion doesn't need to shouted from the rooftops, it can simply be how the product is designed. In this case it can be inferred that if you're not playing the above games, then you're not playing OSR style.
After all, without those games, there would never have been a movement at all, now would there?
Quote from: S'mon;855555Module-based play is the standard on eg Dragonsfoot, and OSRIC was originally to support that mode with new published modules, but the current OSR tends to emphasise the pre-module do it yourself approach rather than use of published adventures.
So according to Nikita, OSRIC is too new school for cool. :D
Quote from: Christopher Brady;856096Promotion doesn't need to shouted from the rooftops, it can simply be how the product is designed. In this case it can be inferred that if you're not playing the above games, then you're not playing OSR style.
And exactly what is it about those games that makes you infer that they are enforcing a OSR Style of Play. Don't be coy spell it out it for the rest of us.
Frankly you are blowing smoke out of your ass. There isn't single element about style of play you can point too that isn't found in 90% of the RPGs on the market.
Of course if you are talking about Matt Finch's Primer for Old School Gaming then perhaps you have a point about Matt Finch's tone about modern mechanics. However the Primer for Old School Gaming is found in neither Swords & Wizardry or OSRIC both works he had a direct hand in.
So again point out the specifics that support your contention that OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardry imply there only one approved style of play for the OSR. And please enlighten us how that some inhibited the release of products like Death, Frost, Doom, Vornheim, and my own Scourge of the Demon Wolf.
Quote from: NathanIW;856079I listen to a ton of actual play podcasts and noticed most GMs very quickly adopt an off the top of their head approach rather than going with the described method in the rules. Many times you can't immediately tell whether they are playing OD&D, B/X or AD&D.
Ah, I always ask, do you have any personal recommendations (for or against)?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;856096Promotion doesn't need to shouted from the rooftops, it can simply be how the product is designed. In this case it can be inferred that if you're not playing the above games, then you're not playing OSR style.
After all, without those games, there would never have been a movement at all, now would there?
So you're one of those guys that just goes around spreading stupid stuff on the internet, depending upon people running with your opinion after assuming that your conclusion is backed up by something rational.
Quote from: EOTB;856132So you're one of those guys that just goes around spreading stupid stuff on the internet, depending upon people running with your opinion after assuming that your conclusion is backed up by something rational.
The notion that "old school" and "Old School Runnysnots" are not the same thing seems to escape many people.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;856096So according to Nikita, OSRIC is too new school for cool. :D
Yeah, I think the stuff the cool kids (Raggi, Zak S et al) are doing is quite different from the Dragonsfoot style of 1e modules, which OSRIC commercialised.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856071Style of play is one thing, but a system itself is going to have a built in style. Look at 4E.
Like I mentioned earlier you can, with some ease, make 4E old-school. It's not very difficult so long as the players going in know what they're in for.
Quote from: Batman;856145Like I mentioned earlier you can, with some ease, make 4E old-school. It's not very difficult so long as the players going in know what they're in for.
How would you do that? I mean, it wouldn't be "4E" anymore if you changed it enough.
Quote from: estar;856105And exactly what is it about those games that makes you infer that they are enforcing a OSR Style of Play. Don't be coy spell it out it for the rest of us.
The game is built with certain expectations, the various blurbs on how to play in the books/PDFs are meant to evoke this certain style of gaming, which they have dubbed OSR. Which again, is supposedly how people played uniformly back in the 70's.
Personally, I think it's bullshit. I've never played that way, in fact, what people call OSR, I would claim is 'New School' simply because until about 2010-2012, all these experiences of that particular style were boogeyman stories. And varied so wildly depending on the person playing, telling the story of their experiences, that it's sure as hell not anywhere near unified.
And frankly I know I'm going to offend someone here, each and every single gamer's play style is unique anyway that labeling it in any way is both laughably pretentious and just plain sad. It's caused me to roll my eyes, metaphorically pat people on the head and wish them Happy Gaming, because frankly, this OSR bullshit is just another tribe of Gamers usually trying to look special to everyone else for playing a way that others say they may have.
At the end of the day, to me, you're One of Us. A gamer and that's good enough for me.
So rock on you crazy squirrel, enjoy playing your way! Because I will enjoy playing mine. Be yourself, I say.
YMMV.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;856152The game is built with certain expectations, the various blurbs on how to play in the books/PDFs are meant to evoke this certain style of gaming, which they have dubbed OSR. Which again, is supposedly how people played uniformly back in the 70's.
I've never seen any OSR fans make this claim about uniformity.
Quote from: Batman;855526Old School isn't a specific system or even game, it's a style of play.
That is the gist of it, though different people draw lines placing different elements of "style of play" beyond the pale.
The objections to WotC's treatment (and even to late TSR treatment) of the D&D brand stemmed from perceptions that the handbooks and scenarios implemented a different ethos and thereby made it hard to play the old way.
To the practical encumbrance of game systems -- for increasing numbers enough of a turnoff in its own right -- was added a game culture that sought to press even further away.
Quote from: S'mon;856153I've never seen any OSR fans make this claim about uniformity.
Every time someone buys OSRIC or LL or S&W, they do so with the expectation of an OSR experience, because that's how the game system has been billed. And each copy of each book (or PDF as the case may be) is identical and thus 'uniform', and a lot of gamers do not have Gronan's or Chirine's experiences with the devs, and humans in general don't like to think 'outside the box'...
Fucking hell, we CALL IT Old School Revival for a reason, because it's supposedly got some similarities to how the older games were (meant to be, to some) played.
Humans don't group and label something that doesn't have similarities to something else for shits and giggles. C'mon man, don't pretend to be obtuse. PC's (computers) are called that because they use the Windows operating system, which generally works the same way, no matter what version, they all have the same icons that have the same functions. We call Apple computers Macs for the same reason. Uniformity breeds labels and names, it's how humanity has worked for generations.
You know what? I'm done. This is a silly, silly, silly, pointless topic because the beliefs in here are built on mostly erroneous assumptions.
Play RPGs your way, who cares what it's called. Just HAVE FUN!
I do.
Not that it would come anywhere near making the sweeping case, but I'd be curious to see even one instance of anyone claiming that everyone back in the 1970s played according to any one ideology.
Brady's claim looks like the real cryptozoic 'boogeyman' as far as I've seen.
It's not at all clear just what manner of game he's talking about in the first place, but many things that in my experience were fairly common in the 1970s and early 1980s seem quite extraordinary today.
"Fairly common" relative to present near-extinction is not the same as "universal adoption." Hex-and-counter historical games were vastly more visible as recently as 1990 than they are today, as were video game arcades in 1985 -- both well past their peak.
QuoteAt the end of the day, to me, you're One of Us. A gamer and that's good enough for me.
The reality is that when I write something
So rock on you crazy squirrel, enjoy playing your way! Because I will enjoy playing mine. Be yourself, I say.
Oh for fuck sake, your whole outrage is due to the fact that you are a non-conformist and a individualist. You can't give specifics because your problem with the fact there is a large group with shared interests in the first place.
The OSR is the wrong target for that sentiment. It is as libertarian of a movement can be and still be a definable group. Why? Because the whole thing was a ignited by hacks of the d20 System Reference Document. Because the d20 System Reference Document is under the Open Game License anybody else who had a bright idea could go "Hey will I do it this way and publish it". And if anybody tries to acts as a gatekeeper the immediate reaction is "Fuck off." Seriously you have to have failed multiple saves against delusion not to release just how diverse the OSR is.
The way you talk it obvious you haven't actually read any OSR products. Also it obvious you haven't have a clue about how the OSR actually operates.
The Pundit suffered similar delusions to yours. He stood on his soapbox shouted to the heavens that the OSR was in the clutches of gatekeepers and that we were all sheeps following the likes of Knights and Knaves and Grognardia blindly.
You know what finally shut him up? Because a bunch of us repeatably told him "Publish your own damn OSR product." Show the rest of us how it done. And he did and guess what? He found out there were no gatekeepers that it worked pretty much how we said it worked. And Arrows of Indra did well enough for him that he did it again a second time with Dark Albion which also looks like it selling well for him.
So that the challenge I give you. If the OSR is that bad then make a product that shows us how to it right. Make something that is better.
Quote from: Phillip;856157Brady's claim looks like the real cryptozoic 'boogeyman' as far as I've seen.
It's not at all clear just what manner of game he's talking about in the first place, but many things that in my experience were fairly common in the 1970s and early 1980s seem quite extraordinary today.[/QUOTEHis problem is not with the game but with the OSR as a group. I ran into this more than a few times when I ran a game convention or a LARP event. There are non-conformists that absolutely despise any type of group or group labels.
Given the fact that the OSR is so decentralized the only effective way I found to deal with this attitude is to tell them to publish something that show how the rest of us are wrong. When they throw up various objections about publishing a product, you explain how to accomplish it with the resources at hand. Reduce the issue to the point where the only thing left is whether they are willing to do the work of writing or not.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;856117Ah, I always ask, do you have any personal recommendations (for or against)?
I mostly like the Quest for the Book of Sorrows, but some episodes are better than others (which should be expected).
http://rfipodcast.com/show/actual-play-podcast/
Quote from: Christopher Brady;856152The game is built with certain expectations, the various blurbs on how to play in the books/PDFs are meant to evoke this certain style of gaming, which they have dubbed OSR. Which again, is supposedly how people played uniformly back in the 70's.
Emphasis added. This is the part that people feel you have not backed up.
QuoteAnd frankly I know I'm going to offend someone here, each and every single gamer's play style is unique anyway that labeling it in any way is both laughably pretentious and just plain sad. It's caused me to roll my eyes, metaphorically pat people on the head and wish them Happy Gaming, because frankly, this OSR bullshit is just another tribe of Gamers usually trying to look special to everyone else for playing a way that others say they may have.
I've found it fruitless and self indulgent to go around calling people pretentious, claiming others want to look special, and doing things like rolling ones eyes and metaphorically patting others on the head. It makes you look bad, not them.
QuoteEvery time someone buys OSRIC or LL or S&W, they do so with the expectation of an OSR experience, because that's how the game system has been billed. And each copy of each book (or PDF as the case may be) is identical and thus 'uniform', and a lot of gamers do not have Gronan's or Chirine's experiences with the devs, and humans in general don't like to think 'outside the box'...
This is a shift in your usage of the term uniform. Was our style of play back in the 70s uniform (or supposedly so), or is it the OSR books?
QuoteHumans don't group and label something that doesn't have similarities to something else for shits and giggles. C'mon man, don't pretend to be obtuse.
No one is pretending to be obtuse, they are pointing out valid gaps in your argument.
QuoteYou know what? I'm done. This is a silly, silly, silly, pointless topic because the beliefs in here are built on mostly erroneous assumptions.
Have fun being done.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;856238Emphasis added. This is the part that people feel you have not backed up.
I know I said I was done with this, but:
What part of the word 'supposedly' did you miss?
I'm not saying it was uniform, just that the OSR movement claims it is by putting out books that are meant to be run in a certain play style. Each of them (and I own all of the ones I've mentioned, OSRIC, LL and S&W) and to my untrained eye, they're not even alike. Not to mention that the style of game they espoused is nothing like I used to play with my original DMs.
May argument has always been that OSR is a bullshit term made up by people who either want to push a specific play style onto others, or want to feel special because they
think their play style was popular way back when.
Look, go buy/play all the 'OSR' games, they're pretty fun in and of themselves. It's this 'movement' I think that's misguided, simply because I don't think that people should segregate themselves, intentionally or not, into small tribes because of something as silly as how we play our elf games.
Simply because of all the political backlash we're getting from our own hobby (See the OBS thread), we need all the allies we can get to stand up for us.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;856376I know I said I was done with this, but:
What part of the word 'supposedly' did you miss?
I'm not saying it was uniform, just that the OSR movement claims it is by putting out books that are meant to be run in a certain play style.
That has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen.
Yeah, I'm not sure what to say after reading that. And this idea that people joining together to explore their common interest is some sort of negative segregation is just ridiculous. If someone likes something and has found others with similar interests and they come up with an easily identifiable term and logo for what they are doing that's not becoming a separate tribe. It's just a way to easily identify content of interest.
And there's still nothing backing up his charge that the OSR is about pushing it on other people or that people are using the term to feel special about how their approach to play was more widespread than it was. If someone points back to some early examples of free wheeling play by Gary, Dave, Mike, Tim, etc., they tend to just be saying that the approach these guys took was fun. The OSR was born out of that approach being the road less traveled, so this charge of universal adoption of it in the past just makes no sense. And it's still completely unsubstantiated. Not a single link to anyone of note claiming that the free wheeling approach was more wide spread than it really was.
The most I've ever seen was an appeal to the fact that the founders of the hobby played that way. I've never actually seen anyone go further and say "and so did everyone else!". And now the thing that's backing up this claim of uniformity is that game rules work as the designer intended them and don't intentionally support other styles? Really? That's the proof of some sort of uniformity? Worst argument ever.
--
Quote from: estar;856189The OSR is the wrong target for that sentiment. It is as libertarian of a movement can be and still be a definable group. Why? Because the whole thing was a ignited by hacks of the d20 System Reference Document. Because the d20 System Reference Document is under the Open Game License anybody else who had a bright idea could go "Hey will I do it this way and publish it". And if anybody tries to acts as a gatekeeper the immediate reaction is "Fuck off." Seriously you have to have failed multiple saves against delusion not to release just how diverse the OSR is.
This. And it goes so far beyond the OGL. The tools of publication have never been more accessible. All you need is computer access that many people can get for free at a local library. You can write up your document, do simple layout and produce a PDF all for free using online tools. And then you can sell it or even get print on demand copies sent almost anywhere in the world for no cash up front.
Another thread is discussing the building of a 'dungeon' in sync with the ethos of recent D&D editions, which dovetails with the builder's video game referents.
The builder may have overlooked a signal feature of those video games: replay.
If a Super Metroid player gets Samus killed, she can reboot and start again. The gamebook format is similar: The very titles of Tunnels & Trolls solos such as "Naked Doom", "Deathtrap Equalizer" and "Overkill" bespeak the importance of failure and reset in getting full mileage from their pages.
Replays usually don't fit campaign continuity, and the trivial challenge that ensures a script unfolds does not fit the ethos of the pioneering RPGs.
As many have observed -- whether they like or dislike it -- this is in old D&D not just a high-level matter of scenario and campaign structure. Many lower-level 'mechanics' are geared to generating uncertainty (including ample opportunities for sudden death).
A linear model works for tournament rounds, but that's an 'abnormal' mode of play in the old context. Clearly many people took the 'modules' spun off from this as prescriptive, and TSR's entry into the field coincided with the publication of the AD&D books that brought a huge influx of new players -- as did the Basic/Expert lines a few years later.
That's close enough to primeval to the majority of players today. Indeed, one would hope that most came in at least as recently as the 1990s (AD&D 2nd Ed.), because otherwise we're talking a quarter-century of even greater stagnation and decline than should warm the cockles of curmudgeonly hearts.
Quote from: Phillip;856434Another thread is discussing the building of a 'dungeon' in sync with the ethos of recent D&D editions, which dovetails with the builder's video game referents.
The builder may have overlooked a signal feature of those video games: replay.
If a Super Metroid player gets Samus killed, she can reboot and start again. The gamebook format is similar: The very titles of Tunnels & Trolls solos such as "Naked Doom", "Deathtrap Equalizer" and "Overkill" bespeak the importance of failure and reset in getting full mileage from their pages.
Replays usually don't fit campaign continuity, and the trivial challenge that ensures a script unfolds does not fit the ethos of the pioneering RPGs.
As many have observed -- whether they like or dislike it -- this is in old D&D not just a high-level matter of scenario and campaign structure. Many lower-level 'mechanics' are geared to generating uncertainty (including ample opportunities for sudden death).
A linear model works for tournament rounds, but that's an 'abnormal' mode of play in the old context. Clearly many people took the 'modules' spun off from this as prescriptive, and TSR's entry into the field coincided with the publication of the AD&D books that brought a huge influx of new players -- as did the Basic/Expert lines a few years later.
That's close enough to primeval to the majority of players today. Indeed, one would hope that most came in at least as recently as the 1990s (AD&D 2nd Ed.), because otherwise we're talking a half-century of even greater stagnation and decline than should warm the cockles of curmudgeonly hearts.
Wait, those old modules like Mines of Madness are built for replaying? But the players who previously went through it would know where the previous traps killed them are, even though their characters wouldn't. What do they do, just walk into them to maintain character RP?
Also I don't understand what you mean about replays, in general. Because in that dungeon Angry is building, the entire point is to structure everything so the party doesn't get killed. So unlike a video game where you die over and over, it won't happen here.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;856376I'm not saying it was uniform, just that the OSR movement claims it is by putting out books that are meant to be run in a certain play style. Each of them (and I own all of the ones I've mentioned, OSRIC, LL and S&W) and to my untrained eye, they're not even alike. Not to mention that the style of game they espoused is nothing like I used to play with my original DMs.
Not true at all. My Microlite74/78/81 games are designed to be played in many different styles just like TSR versions were. Here's the "Notes on Old School Play" I use in my Microlite74 games (and in Mircolite78 and Microlite81 with game names changed). It is quite different than Matt Finch's "A Quick Primer for Old School Play" and mentions multiple styles of play. Yes, it is all about the the D-N-D game but doesn't directly mention it because of OGL requirements. Speaking of which, the text quoted below is open game content under the OGL except for game names like "Microlite20" and "Microlite74".
QuoteNotes on "Old School" Play
While Microlite74 is designed using tried and true "D20" systems filtered through the Microlite20 rules, it is designed for a completely different style of play than many players who started to play in the last 20 years or so may be used to. This section will give a brief overview of "old school" play.
What is "Old School" Play?
There are two major styles of roleplaying games. The first (and older) style says "Here is the situation. Pretend you are there as your character, what do you want to do?" This style has been superseded over the years with a style that says "Here is the situation. Based on your character's stats, abilities, skills, etc. as listed on his character sheet and your knowledge of the many detailed rules of the game, what is the best way to use your character's skills and abilities and the rules to solve the situation?" Old school play strongly favors the first style and frowns on too much of the second.
Here are some major points where old school play is different:
Heroic, not Superheroic: Old school play, especially at low to mid levels, is about fairly normal people put in situations where they can be heroes, not about extraordinary people doing things that would make a four-color comic book superhero proud – and at first level yet. Just like in the real world, the more a character improves his abilities, the harder it is to improve them further, while new characters may advance rapidly, the higher their level the more effort and time (and XP) it takes to advance to the next level.
Achievement, not Advancement: Many modern games are often all about what special feats, extra classes and special game mechanics the players wish to obtain for their characters as they increase in level. In old school games, a character's abilities are generally predetermined by his character class, so old school games focus on the things that the characters wish to accomplish in the game world rather than on what game mechanics they want to acquire. Level advancement is often much slower than in modern fantasy RPGs which makes in campaign achievements even more important as a measure of character success.
No Skills: Unlike in most modern RPGs, there aren't any skills in Microlite74 -- not even the streamlined four skills of Microlite20. Players are intended to have their characters act like adventurers. So don't search your character sheet or the rules for the perfect solution in Microlite74. Instead, you just tell the GM what your character is trying to do. Note that you are assumed to be competent with all common activities associated with your class and background. If you need to keep a door open or shut, you might tell the GM your character is using a spike to keep the door open or closed. A ten foot pole is your friend for checking for traps. Searching a room means looking in and under objects, not rolling a skill check. While this may seem strange at first, you will quickly learn to appreciate the freedom it gives you. No longer are you limited to the skills and feats on your character sheet, you can try anything your character should be capable of trying. You might not succeed, but the rules generally will not stop you from trying.
Limited Magic Items: Modern fantasy RPGs often assume that magic items are easy to buy and/or to create. In most old school campaigns, magic items are relatively rare and hard to create. Only potions and scrolls are generally relatively easy to create or purchase. Other magic items are seldom found for sale (and are very high priced when they are found for sale) and are usually very expensive in money and time to try to create – often requiring rare ingredients that the characters must quest to find. Therefore characters are usually limited to the magic items they find in treasures or take from defeated enemies on adventures.
No Assumption of "Game Balance": Old style game sessions aren't about carefully balanced characters (who are all able to shine equally at all times) who only run into situations carefully designed by the GM to be beatable by the characters presently in the party and to provide treasure that fits their current level. Instead, part of player skill is learning to evaluate situations so situations well over the party's current abilities or which will waste the party's resources for little gain can be avoided. Don't assume that you can beat every monster that you encounter, running away from monsters too tough to handle can mean the difference between character survival and character death. You can also get creative in how you defeat monsters. Perhaps those goblins you bypassed could be talked into (or tricked into) attacking that giant you know you can't beat, perhaps killing it for you or at least softening it up so your party has a chance of defeating it and living to tell the tale. Also remember that treasure can be turned into XP, even if you can't kill the monsters, perhaps you can still acquire some of their treasure. Part of the skill of playing "old school" style is coming up with creative solutions when a direct attack is likely to fail.
It's Not All About Combat: Many modern fantasy RPGs have made combat the star of the system, combats in these systems are time-consuming and very crunchy with rules for everything. Microlite20 avoids this by having a fast-playing abstract combat system. Microlite74 takes this one step further, combat isn't intended to be the main source of fun in the game. The game is as much about exploration and treasuring finding as it is about combat. Sure, you are going to have to fight things to explore and find treasure, but always remember that combat may not be the best or safest way to handle every situation. Think before you rush into combat. After all, it's not the only way to earn a good pile of experience – and monsters don't have to be killed to be defeated (and get XP for them).
Reality/Common Sense Trumps Rules: Old-school games use loose and simple rules that cover average cases and the GM and players are supposed to apply common sense and their knowledge of how reality works to cover the unusual and edge cases. "Reality/Common Sense" as interpreted by the GM always trumps the written rules if they conflict. For example, a character has a magic weapon and the rules for that weapon say it always causes its target to fall prone if hit. The character hits a gelatinous cube moving down the corridor toward them with the weapon. The rules say that the target should fall and be in a prone position. Reality, however, says otherwise. Gelatinous cubes don't have a top and bottom (so prone penalties make no sense) and a 10 foot cube can't fall when it is moving through a 10 foot corridor. In some modern games, the rules would be applied anyway and the cube would suffer the effects of falling prone no matter how little sense that makes. In an old school game, the GM ignores the rule because it makes no sense in the specific situation.
Forget "Rules Mastery": As some of the above differences have hinted, player skill in "old school" style games isn't about mastering the game rules so you can solve any problem by knowing the right combination of rules from 20 different rule books. Microlite20 is designed to be rules light and Microlite74 tries to stress this even more by encouraging GMs to make rulings on the spot taking into account specific circumstances instead of trying to hunt up special cases in the SRD or a stack of optional rule books. This is faster and helps players immerse themselves in their character and the game world instead of in rule books. GM rulings will be based on specific circumstances and common sense, not just on the written rules and prior rulings. Just because it requires a certain roll to jump one 10 foot pit does not mean all 10 foot wide pits will require the same roll. After all, all sorts of variables can affect the roll (terrain, weather, lighting, pressure to jump quickly, etc.). Players need to remember that these rules are merely a tool for the GM. They are just guidelines for the GM, not something written in stone that the GM must obey. If something herein does not work right in your campaign (or the GM just does not like a rule), the GM is well within his right to change it. Microlite74 is not a game for rules lawyers or for those who believe that the game designer always knows what is best.
No Script Immunity: In most old school games, player characters do not have any form of script immunity. Player characters can die, lose equipment, suffer strange magical effects and other often unpleasant consequences if they are not careful or are just very unlucky. On the other hand, there are no rules limiting their success. If they take on an adult red dragon as first level characters and miraculously manage to win, there are no rules about level appropriate wealth or level appropriate magic items to interfere with their becoming rich and probably flush with magic items from the dragon's hoard.
Not Mentioned does not mean Prohibited: Many people seem to read RPG rules and come away with the idea that anything not specifically mentioned in the rules as allowed is prohibited. While this really doesn't make much sense given that no set of rules could ever cover everything that characters might attempt to do in an adventure, it seems to be a very common way to view RPG rules. In an old school game like Microlite74, this is specifically not true: the millions of possible activities not mentioned in the rules are not prohibited, they are up to the GM to allow or disallow based on his knowledge of how reality works and how his specific campaign world differs from reality. Unless the rules specifically prohibit some action, players should ask their GM instead of simply assuming it is prohibited because the rules do not mention it.
Styles of "Old School" Play
If you read some "old school" blogs, forums, and web sites, you might get the impression that there is only one "old school'" style of play: a style with expendable player characters who spend all their time in dungeons designed in the style of the old "Tomb of Horrors" module where an adventuring party is only one slipup away from death. This style of play is often shown in early modules.
What most people forget is that these early modules were designed for tournament play where the party that lasted longest and make it deepest into the dungeon was the winner. While a few gaming groups did run their regular campaigns like this and enjoy it, most people did not enjoy such games and the GMs who ran them were often referred to as "Killer GMs" (who often found themselves without players). Instead most home campaigns were a mixture of the following four styles – some campaigns stressing one or two styles over the others.
Power-Gaming: Many players start out playing in this style. Most soon get bored with it and add more and more of other styles. A power-gaming campaign is all about character power. Characters are known by their class, level, special items, and amazing powers and deeds. ("I killed the Demon King with my 15th Level Fighter/Magic-User/Druid. It only took two hits from Thor's Hammer to knock him out. Then I cut off his head with my vorpal blade.") There is often a lot of player competition for the most powerful character in campaigns that stress power-gaming. A lot of people look down on this style, but it can be a lot of fun to play a pure power-game in a group of players who all like the style.
Wargaming: This is probably the style old school rules were originally written for. The wargaming style of play is a competition between the player group and the GM. The GM sets up tactical battles, puzzles, and the like and the players solve them for treasure and experience. Fudging die rolls and ignoring rules (either for or against the players) is frowned upon as it detracts from the challenge and fun of the adventure. Characters in pure wargaming campaigns often were expendable and had little personality or goals (beyond staying live and getting rich) as a character with such might be tempted to do things dysfunctional to survival. Published tournament dungeons like Tomb of Horrors could be considered examples of extreme forms of this style. Once the RPG hobby became known outside of the minis and board wargaming community, pure forms of the wargaming style quickly became uncommon.
Role-Playing: A pure role-playing campaign is almost the opposite of a pure wargaming campaign. Player skill, tactics, and rules aren't really important. What is important is the player's character and that character's life in the game. In a pure role-playing campaign, players create the personality of their characters in great detail and players generally have a large emotional investments made in them and do not consider their characters expendable. Players tend to have their characters act within their personalities and within the beliefs they're supposed to hold – even when doing so is not the best thing to do at the time within the game. The object is to live your character's life in the campaign world. You "win" be having your character achieve his goals, goals which may or may not have anything to do with the game's goals of exploring and accumulating treasure and experience points. The modern computer game The Sims is an example of this style of play.
Story-Telling: While all campaigns tell a story after-the-fact (that is, you can tell a story based on the characters actions in the game), in a story-telling campaign, the GM has worked out a story in advance and the player characters are the protagonists. The campaign world usually has a detailed background and back story behind it. Knowing this background may be more important than knowing the rules. Some pure story telling campaigns are little more that single-line railroads where the characters play their almost pre-scripted parts in the story. In other cases, things are more free-form with story flow and events created by interactions between the GM's basic outline of story events and the actions of individual characters during the campaign. Some people consider the more pure forms of story-telling campaigns boring straight-jackets while others love the idea of being a major part of a real story.
These four major styles of play appeared early in the history of role-playing games. They were first mentioned in a general circulation publication in Glenn Blacow's article "Aspects of Adventure Gaming" in Different Worlds #10 (the October 1980 issue).
The important thing to take from this section isn't the four styles or their labels (as there are other systems for describing this with their own labels), but the idea that there were many different styles of "old school" play back in the "old school" days – not just the single style stressed in some "old school" blogs, forums, and web sites. Don't let those sites make you believe that you aren't playing old school right if your campaign isn't strongly in the wargaming camp. Most successful campaigns back in "old school" days were a mixture of all four major styles – and a heaping helping of minor styles.
Quote from: NathanIW;856079One thing I've noticed about lots of AD&D/OSRIC GMs is that they have largely abandoned the idea of rules as binding law that AD&D was originally marketed with as a means of unifying the player base and cutting Arneson out of royalties.
I listen to a ton of actual play podcasts and noticed most GMs very quickly adopt an off the top of their head approach rather than going with the described method in the rules. Many times you can't immediately tell whether they are playing OD&D, B/X or AD&D.
People who take minute mechanical trivia as the point of conformity seem to me to be ignoring what Mr. Gygax actually wrote. If you get a look at Dave Hargrave's
Arduin Grimoire volumes, that's a taste of the kind of radical variance that was rampant.
The Chaosium project that ultimately yielded
RuneQuest started with a Gloranthan adaptation of the Arduin framework. The RQ-ish "Perrin Conventions" were created for a "D&D" game -- which was just as legitimate as one using the system in
Eldritch Wizardry. Backhaus and Simbalist's
Chivalry & Sorcery and Kevin Siembieda's
Palladium show their roots more clearly than RQ. The Phoenix Cosmic Circle called their game "Dungeons & Dragons" until they decided to publish it, when it was renamed
Tunnels & Trolls.
EVERYTHING in the original booklets and 'official' Supplements and Strategic Review/Dragon -- all the material revised and collated in the AD&D books -- originated as somebody's personal variant. From the 'Alternate' (quickly become usual) combat system to different-sized Hit Dice, lower XP value for monsters to Half-elves and Thieves, all that material is just the tip of the iceberg of variation that made the "non-game game" of 1970s D&D.
Quote from: Phillip;856434The builder may have overlooked a signal feature of those video games: replay.
Great insight. Definitely an element that hasn't been explicitly identified or discussed in the thread so far. It seems related to the "no safety rails" or "no systematized level appropriate encounter design" ideas, but I think it goes a little further.
I recently read an old campaign log from a game store in the late 70s. There was so many instances of repeat delving into the same sort of areas and changing people present at the open table at the store.
QuoteMany lower-level 'mechanics' are geared to generating uncertainty (including ample opportunities for sudden death).
Also for many people campaigns end and restart and reboot and lots and lots of time is spent on low level play.
In my own game the level cap for mortals of all kinds is level 5. To go any higher they need to do something to become a mythic hero but there's no such limit to the monsters. And with a d6 hit die for everyone and only getting a CON modifier once, it's quite possible for a simple threat to do enough damage to kill anyone. Only one of the original characters is left and they've gone back and pushed through areas where they suffered previous deaths and defeats many times.
One thing I'm not great at is restocking "cleared" areas. I have lots of dungeon factions going on and I tend to have them fill power vacuums as my means of restocking, but the players have made peace with enough of them that progress through previously explored areas is way, way safer than the unknown. I suppose that all goes away if key party members who have relationships with these factions eventually bite it, but I think I need to amp up the replay-ability of these areas.
Quote from: RandallS;856436Speaking of which, the text quoted below is open game content under the OGL except for game names like "Microlite20" and "Microlite74".
If I ever hammer my practical notes (for my classless system behind the screen M74 game) into a format for other people to read I'll definitely be including that text.
I definitely ended up with a hybrid of the styles you identified. There's a definite wargaming sensibility, but the attempt to concentrate things on natural language has definitely amped up the roleplaying and storytelling elements. One player really loves resource management and is firmly in the powergaming camp. He's also the only one still with his original character as he is quite cautious.
We've had no issues with different people at the table having different styles as their own priority. I think it's because the game is exploration based and the players get to chase their interests, so the guy who's really into RPing and dialogue and developing a town/community/kingdom can do so while still enjoying the delves deeper into the underworld for treasure to fund his ambitions.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;856376I'm not saying it was uniform, just that the OSR movement claims it is by putting out books that are meant to be run in a certain play style.
They put out books that, with minor variations, duplicate the algorithms of the originals. How are those supposed to be any
more binding than the originals?
When Chris Gonnerman intentionally changes some things in his Basic Fantasy, or Matt Finch in his Swords & Wizardry, it's an expression of his
personal style.
That's the really prevalent ethos here, a do it yourself ethos in line with what Gygax and Arneson said in the conclusion of their seminal text:
"... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you?"EDIT to add: The OSR works are largely issued under license terms that give you freedom to make your own derivative works without asking permission, and some are published in formats such as RTF that make direct editing easy.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856435Also I don't understand what you mean about replays, in general. Because in that dungeon Angry is building, the entire point is to structure everything so the party doesn't get killed.
That's what I'm talking about. It negates the fundamental point of a proper dungeon in the original sense. It's a 're-imagining' to the point that the nomenclature is absurd in an "old school" context.
I started a different thread to talk about this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=33178), but I would like to know your opinion on a particular subject:
- In old school D&D, level is the main gauge of character capability.
I am under the impression that abilities/attributes and skills have become ubiquitous in RPGs, but in OD&D abilities are unchangeable and skills are defined by level, which is very diminished in newer games (in 5e, for example, we have been discussing how most saves don't improve with level).
I would like to know what Gronan, Chirine, and others reading this thread think about that if you will. Thanks!
Quote from: Eric Diaz;856456I started a different thread to talk about this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=33178), but I would like to know your opinion on a particular subject:
- In old school D&D, level is the main gauge of character capability.
This is generally true in D&D played with old school rules. Attributes generally only go up via rare magic items (e.g. reading the Manual of Gainful Exercise adds 1 point to strength). And almost everything else that varies (hit points, attack chance, saving throws, spells cast per day, etc.) is mainly determined by your level (with a low or high attribute modifying things in some cases).
Quote from: Eric Diaz;856456I started a different thread to talk about this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=33178), but I would like to know your opinion on a particular subject:
- In old school D&D, level is the main gauge of character capability.
I am under the impression that abilities/attributes and skills have become ubiquitous in RPGs, but in OD&D abilities are unchangeable and skills are defined by level, which is very diminished in newer games (in 5e, for example, we have been discussing how most saves don't improve with level).
I would like to know what Gronan, Chirine, and others reading this thread think about that if you will. Thanks!
Level is the initial determinant of how well a fighter hits things, a thief picks locks, a cleric turns undead, a mage casts spells. It gives hit points and saving throws.
Player decisions are additional and often more important factors. A well ordered heavy spear phalanx is likely to deliver glorious death to a disordered band of unarmored axe-swingers.
Player decisions are generally the most important factor in activities beyond those key class-specific ones.
Ability scores can be considerations, and can vary widely over a figure's career. The key difference is that these changes are consequences of events in play, usually magical, rather than of spending points on a "figure build" shopping list.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;856456- In old school D&D, level is the main gauge of character capability.
The main reason for this is that in Chainmail's Fantasy Combat, a Hero was worth four normal figures, and a super-hero was worth eight normal figures.
The path to OD&D from Chainmail winds a bit but the idea that level means you are X times better than an average guy persists and is the source of the use of levels in D&D.
Where Chainmail had discrete jumps from veteran to hero to super hero, OD&D defines the intermediate steps as well.
Also the difference between 1st and 4th and 8th level was toned down a bit. in Chainmail, a 4th level Hero was really equal to four normal figures. In D&D this was only perserved in the way that hit points are setup and even then there was a cut off point where that stopped (usually around 9th or 10th level).
Over the years and editions this was expanded and extrapolated into what we have now.
Quote from: estar;856473Also the difference between 1st and 4th and 8th level was toned down a bit. in Chainmail, a 4th level Hero was really equal to four normal figures. In D&D this was only perserved in the way that hit points are setup and even then there was a cut off point where that stopped (usually around 9th or 10th level).
Over the years and editions this was expanded and extrapolated into what we have now.
Do you mean eventually the levels stopped being representative of multiples of an average person? Or that it was replaced with even more power rather than less?
After level 9 or 10, you stop rolling new hit dice (and getting a constitution bonus), and simply go up 1, 2, or 3 hp per level. This coincides with when fighters stop wading into so many combats and start setting up keeps and lesser kingdoms, so I assume that's part of it, but I've never heard anyone confirm the why of that (or why xp per level plateaus around there). It is a staple of TSR era A/D&D and most of the retro-clones and OSR games, but I don't think it is vital to the concept.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856476Do you mean eventually the levels stopped being representative of multiples of an average person? Or that it was replaced with even more power rather than less?
Yes they stopped being a strict representative of multiples of an average person.
As for the power level the focus was more on character customization then combat power. It varied in my opinion it went like this.
OD&D the first game
OD&D + Greyhawk beefed up fighters and spell caster and added the thief.
AD&D pulled in all the stuff in OD&D that was scattered about in supplements and magazine and clean it up.
Unearthed Arcana - fighters get boosted and a couple of other tweaks were added that helped other classes.
AD&D 2e - the focus is more on customization than raw power along AD&D 2e to be used with a variety of settings.
AD&D 2e - Skills and Power - nominally the ultimate character customization tool for 2e it also upped the power level of the game.
D&D 3.0 - cleaned up the issues with Skills and Power and took character customization to the limit. However instead of a balance between roleplaying and combat the customization became more and move focused on combat.
D&D 3.5 - the trend towards combat customization is in full bloom. However there was so much diverse material it was really the fault of the referee if that was a problem.
D&D 4.0 - the customization was 90% only for combat. The rest was dialed back to OD&D level which is to day it was relegated to pure roleplaying.
D&D 5.0 - the first edition since 3.0 to scale things back it went even further than 3.0 in clamping down the power curve from the previous edition. It also has a better balance between roleplaying mechanics and combat mechanics. Still has a fair bit of customization. However it has no where near about of detail that 3.X or 4.0 has.
Pathfinder - continue 3.5 but like 3.5 it so diverse it is on the referee if combat mechanics get out of control for his campaign.
One thing you have to remember is that the rules are NOT the point of playing a RPG. The point is to be a character doing hopefully interesting things in a imagined setting. The rules are a tool to adjudicate what the character does when he interacts with the setting. When the setting logic conflicts with the logic of the rule then the setting logic should prevail.
Setting logic does not automatically equate to realism. It could mean that is a place where a character with the experience of a Hero is equal in ability to four veteran fighting men. Or it could be totally grounded in realism where a single sword strike could take out even the most experienced warrior.
The answer to your questions about levels rest on the fact of what does a 4th level fighter or wizard mean to you when you create a setting. For me what it means is experience. My settings being a leveled character is not special and is a mark of experience. This is neither the only choice nor the superior choice, some consider even a 2nd level character as something special. Think the Marvel or DC Universe where even the weak superheroes are a cut above the ordinary person in the street.
I equate it something like this.
levels 1 to 2 a novice in the profession. Just completed schooling so know something things.
Level 3, you come into your own. You are ordained a priest, you are knighted, you are full member of a mage's or thieves guild.
Level 6, you are a leader among your profession. You still have superiors but you command others well.
Level 9, you are at the height of your profession and can operate independently
Level 12, you are the head of your profession or close to it.
Level 16, you are a legend in your profession.
Level 20, you are a legend to the general populace.
Quote from: estar;856544Yes they stopped being a strict representative of multiples of an average person.
As for the power level the focus was more on character customization then combat power. It varied in my opinion it went like this.
OD&D the first game
OD&D + Greyhawk beefed up fighters and spell caster and added the thief.
Then there was
0D&D +
Blackmoor - This added Monks and Assassins
0D&D +
Eldritch Wizardry - This added Druids & Psionics to the game.
0D&D +
Strategic Review and/or
Best of Dragon - added Rangers, Witches, and Illusionists to the game.
Judges Guild added a bunch of variant tables, mostly for npc encounters. But there was a number of add on classes that were available in the early (pre-1980)
Dungeoneer magazine.
Just some of them included:
Abaku Painters
Anti-Paladins
Mystic
Priests of Thebes
Warlocks
Half-Ogres
Initiates of the White God
Bards
Lightwalkers
Healers
Phoenix (also a race)and ...
Amazons.
OD&D was very sophisticated even before AD&D was published. Just 'sayin.
Quote from: estar;856473Also the difference between 1st and 4th and 8th level was toned down a bit. in Chainmail, a 4th level Hero was really equal to four normal figures. In D&D this was only perserved in the way that hit points are setup and even then there was a cut off point where that stopped (usually around 9th or 10th level).
In OD&D a Hero gets 4 attacks against 1 HD or less opponents, a Superhero gets 8, just like in CHAINMAIL.
And of course it works for monsters too. That's one reason you don't bring ordinary soldiers down past the 2nd level. A giant scorpion of 5 HD will slaughter a platoon of normal men.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;856587In OD&D a Hero gets 4 attacks against 1 HD or less opponents, a Superhero gets 8, just like in CHAINMAIL.
And of course it works for monsters too. That's one reason you don't bring ordinary soldiers down past the 2nd level. A giant scorpion of 5 HD will slaughter a platoon of normal men.
I did not know that it applied to monsters. Do you know where that stated? I am curious to read it myself.
It started in CHAINMAIL and was brought forward. Ogres originally fought as six heavy foot; this was modifed to 4 HD in OD&D, so they fought as 4 figures against ordinary men. It was that way the first time I ever played in Greyhawk.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856150How would you do that? I mean, it wouldn't be "4E" anymore if you changed it enough.
I don't subscribe to the idea that a system must be played in a specific way to maintain its identity. The changes I proposed earlier, for example, simply change a few numbers and the ease of which PCs regain their abilities. Does a Kobold
need to have low hit points to be considered "old school" or is it just as likely he only needs to be hit once or twice by low-level PCs?
What I believe it boils down to is the emphasis of what one considers old-school and then modulating a system to adhere to those principals. Is 4e any less "4e" if a Fighter starts with 5 surges /day compared to 12? Or when a Rogue has to train with a master to gain their 9th level daily? Or if the DM decides that a wizards Scorching Burst at-will spell doesn't work underwater? To me it doesn't matter.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;856629It started in CHAINMAIL and was brought forward. Ogres originally fought as six heavy foot; this was modifed to 4 HD in OD&D, so they fought as 4 figures against ordinary men. It was that way the first time I ever played in Greyhawk.
Makes sense thanks.
Quote from: estar;856660Makes sense thanks.
Of course those rules apply only when such creatures are fighting rank & file mooks only. Any first level character in OD&D besides a fighting man is just a mook because they are also 1 HD or less.
If a hero or any fighting man for that matter, were fighting alongside his men, the ogre wouldn't get those attacks.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;856673Of course those rules apply only when such creatures are fighting rank & file mooks only. Any first level character in OD&D besides a fighting man is just a mook because they are also 1 HD or less.
If a hero or any fighting man for that matter, were fighting alongside his men, the ogre wouldn't get those attacks.
You, sir, are intelligent and perceptive.
That's why originally a "Veteran" got 1+1 HD; the rules for "1 HD or less" creatures don't apply to them.
Makes hobgoblins and berserkers a lot tougher, doesn't it!!
Quote from: NathanIW;856079One thing I've noticed about lots of AD&D/OSRIC GMs is that they have largely abandoned the idea of rules as binding law that AD&D was originally marketed with as a means of unifying the player base and cutting Arneson out of royalties.
I listen to a ton of actual play podcasts and noticed most GMs very quickly adopt an off the top of their head approach rather than going with the described method in the rules. Many times you can't immediately tell whether they are playing OD&D, B/X or AD&D.
Agree.
I may have mentioned in this thread, or in another one recently. I started D&D with the White Box, and I remember when the AD&D books were released. As I switched from OD&D to AD&D--which a bumpy process, since the three books weren't published simultaneously--I had no allegiance at all the AD&D RAW. Eventually I became pretty disenchanted with (A)D&D in general, but I basically treated the hardbacks as a bunch of ideas & resources to be edited and merged with the way I was already playing OD&D, and then changed as necessary going forward.
Some of this was more or less formalized in the sense of explicitly articulated changes (more often transmitted verbally than actually written), other elements were definitely improvised off the cuff, as we already did with OD&D.
In the last decade or so I did run into one person who seemed to stick closer to the rules back in the day (judging from how he analyzed certain tactical elements), and another "young fogie" who was making an effort to follow the rules precisely. The second approach I think could be interesting as an academic exercise. I mean, there's been a lot of discussion & exegesis on the net now that helps explain how the rules might fit together to make things more functional or interesting. (Some examples that I didn't fully appreciate as a kid: XP for gold, weapon speed factors, material components for spells.) I still think there's a lot of stuff that was either nonfunctional or poorly engineered (training rules, weapon v. armor modifiers--much better in Greyhawk than AD&D--unarmed combat as originally presented).
In short there's value in taking a closer look at the rules if you've always been in the habit of playing impressionistically, but I would be surprised if the majority of AD&D groups didn't streamline & hack the game extensively.
You know, I think OS games were not THAT concerned with balanced, although there ARE some obvious efforts to balance things out, and in some ways OS games are more balanced than 3e.
But if you see the OSR, it is pretty much incompatible with balance, at least in the "all must have similar effects on DPR" sense, because there is no way a B/X fighter is "balanced" against a BECMI, AD&D or LoTFP fighter in that way.
Since most of the OSR seem to think you can play with any OS module, the idea of pre-planned "balanced encounters" doesn't work.
So, players must basically DISCOVER their own might against whichever danger they face.. and there is no guarantee they will get a fair chance of winning the fight.
It is one of the things I like about OS play.
How well do you guys think 5E handles "old school" play?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856723How well do you guys think 5E handles "old school" play?
Depends on how you see OS...
For example, going only by the first post:
1) Rulings, not Rules. You don't need many rules, the GM can come up with something.
In 5e: More or less. 5e is simpler than 3e or 4e IMO, but still quite complex compared to B/X or OD&D.
2) Player Skill, not Character Skill. You don't roll find or disarm traps, you describe it.
In 5e: Again, more or less... Character skill is important. OTOH, because of the d20 and bounded accuracy, there is always a chance for failure if you roll.
3) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).
In 5e: Characters get very powerful at their specialties, but not different than average people in other areas.
4) 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.
In 5e: Not really. At least int theory, you have some rules to make encounters balanced.
Some things I find important:
5) Starting characters aren't special. They don't have elaborate backgrounds or many special abilities.
In 5e: Not really. A 1st level character is quite complex. I think this wasn't a good idea, TBH.
6) Resource management is important. You shouldn't be handwaving money, encumbrance, torches etc.
In 5e: Not really focused on IC resource management, more focused on OOC resources (spells, actions, etc).
7) 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.
In 5e: yes, you can play this way - same as any version of D&D.
IMO, all things considered, 5e RAW is quite different from what I see as OS, but is simple enough to be easily hacked into an OS frame.
EDIT: also, if you consider this very relevant post:
Quote from: RandallS;846503I pretty much agree with the points in the first post. Four additional very important "old school" points for me are:
A) Combat is fast and fairly abstract. While combat happens a lot in most old school games, it is not time-consuming nor is it intended to be the most interesting part of the session. Minis/pieces and battlemats can be used if the GM wants but they are never required.
B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.
C) The rules are merely guidelines for the GM. The rules are not intended or designed to protect players from a "bad" GM. Players can and should, of course, not play with a GM they consider bad.
D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.
...you see that simple rules might be quite important for OS play.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856723How well do you guys think 5E handles "old school" play?
Pretty good, but it's missing some systems like monster morale checks & morale, or the old D&D approaches to evasion, getting lost & such. My own 5e campaign is a pretty old school sandboxy thing and pretty well all the published material I use is either original old school (Caverns of Thracia, Wilderlands) or OSR (Dyson's Delve, O5R Liberation of the Demon Slayer). I've had an easy time filling in the gaps; eg I already use B/X style Morale rules in all my games anyway.
The 5e PCs IMC aren't fragile/disposable, but then old-D&D PCs really aren't either after 1st level. It's really 3e where high level Fighter types routinely drop like flies. The spell/magic rules in 5e really limit casters, in ways that are different from old school D&D but the effect is similar, warriors & wizards need to work together, no 3e/PF god-casters and their non-caster mook/grog buddies.
Power progression is different from any prior version of D&D; enemy numbers matter hugely, and a squad of soldiers is a bigger threat than a manticore - I really like this but it feels a bit more like non-D&D RPGs than any version of D&D. It definitely gives that "heroic not superheroic" feel - which I guess resembles low level D&D, but 7th level old school D&D PCs can generally wade through hordes of foes more easily than my 5e group can.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;856728IMO, all things considered, 5e RAW is quite different from what I see as OS, but is simple enough to be easily hacked into an OS frame.
Here's my suggestions on hacking 5e - nothing radical but it gives my game a decidedly non-3e feel:
_______
They did do a good job IMO in making 5e D&D 'driftable' to play like a lot of other editions. The default setting is sort of "2.5e", but I was shocked looking at the 5e forum on EN World to see them treating it like 3e, with lots of talk of 'builds', 'optimisation' et al - nothing like the way I use it. That said, here are some of the things I do to go for a more 1e or Classic (pre-Non Weapon Proficiencies & Skills) type feel:
1. Skills - already vestigial in 5e, I don't really use them, I just add Profiency to whatever ability checks a character should be proficient in by reason of his Class.
2. Multiclassing - this is the bit of 5e that seems most 3e-like. Fortunately it's listed as an optional rule. Disallowed.
3. Saving throws - 5e has this weird thing where most saves never improve, in fact they get harder to make as DCs go up with level. I give every PC Proficiency in all saves, this gives more of a pre-3e feel. I found this doesn't work for monsters though, 5e casters are already much more limited than in other editions and they need to be able to have spells work most of the time or they will seem very weak.
4. Feats - for my Dragonsfoot game I didn't allow them at chargen. I'm a bit torn on this one, but a lot of 5e feats resemble stuff like the Mentzer Classic D&D 'Fighter Smash' attack - stuff that I think is ok at higher level. Again Feats are labelled as Optional and for some groups it may be safer to disallow them if you don't want a whiff of 3e style minmaxing.
5. Death Saves and "heal from zero" - a 4e-ism which is ok-ish in that game, terrible (IMO) in 5e. I don't use them, instead I use negative hit points and when a PC goes deep into negative they'll have trouble getting back up again.
Quote from: S'mon;8567823. Saving throws - 5e has this weird thing where most saves never improve, in fact they get harder to make as DCs go up with level. I give every PC Proficiency in all saves, this gives more of a pre-3e feel. I found this doesn't work for monsters though, 5e casters are already much more limited than in other editions and they need to be able to have spells work most of the time or they will seem very weak.
Not very old school. Always give a monster an even break. Low level monsters should have weak saves but powerful ones should have good saves. The hurt little feelings of players whose spells fail against tough monsters shouldn't be a consideration.
I started a sand-box/hexcrawl style game using Basic 5e (meaning, the basic rules) and so far it's had a significantly "old-school" feeling to it. No feats. No Multiclassing. Basic classes (though I am allowing different sub-classes based on their role-play) and Basic Races (Elf, Dwarf, Human, Halfling). At first I got a lot of the "Well what can I do?!" questions but as I talk to them about doing anything! I believe it's starting to sink in. I told them they don't need X, Y, or Z feat to accomplish something unique, cool, or fun and so long as they describe what they want to do I'll assign a DC or scenario that does a decent job of getting that point across in the game-world.
They've only had 1 combat encounter and they're still pretty new to the idea of what a Hexcrawl is (such as, adventuring is dangerous and don't go into unknown areas where scary monsters might lurk) but they're getting the hang of it. Already they were warned that the Orc tribe to the north of the settlement is a significant threat to the town and they have yet to go there to kill them (it would be a slaughter on the Orcs part as there's over 100+ Orc Warriors and their kin hanging around that area).
It's been a different experience than when we do Pathfinder or 4E but still retains enough of those versions to keep their interest.
@ Eric Diaz: Money, encumbrance and torches are not OOC concerns! They are just the sort of thing one deals with IN character.
Possibly there's a missing period after "not really" in that item.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;856787The hurt little feelings of players whose spells fail against tough monsters shouldn't be a consideration.
Oh, sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, yes. That plus "Boo hoo I missed." Okay, granted, if a turn of combat takes 15 minutes, that sucks. The answer is use a faster combat system.
If one bad die roll "ruins your character,*" I don't want to play with you anyway, and you might need some serious therapy.
*Yes, I've seen this claim made, more than once.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;856787Not very old school. Always give a monster an even break. Low level monsters should have weak saves but powerful ones should have good saves. The hurt little feelings of players whose spells fail against tough monsters shouldn't be a consideration.
Maybe it's just my group, but even when the Warlock casts one of his two spells and the monster fails its save, he still generally does less damage than the barbarian does on a typical attack round. 5e spells generally don't KO the monster on a failed save.
Quote from: S'mon;856781Pretty good, but it's missing some systems like monster morale checks & morale, or the old D&D approaches to evasion, getting lost & such. My own 5e campaign is a pretty old school sandboxy thing and pretty well all the published material I use is either original old school (Caverns of Thracia, Wilderlands) or OSR (Dyson's Delve, O5R Liberation of the Demon Slayer). I've had an easy time filling in the gaps; eg I already use B/X style Morale rules in all my games anyway.
The 5e PCs IMC aren't fragile/disposable, but then old-D&D PCs really aren't either after 1st level. It's really 3e where high level Fighter types routinely drop like flies. The spell/magic rules in 5e really limit casters, in ways that are different from old school D&D but the effect is similar, warriors & wizards need to work together, no 3e/PF god-casters and their non-caster mook/grog buddies.
Power progression is different from any prior version of D&D; enemy numbers matter hugely, and a squad of soldiers is a bigger threat than a manticore - I really like this but it feels a bit more like non-D&D RPGs than any version of D&D. It definitely gives that "heroic not superheroic" feel - which I guess resembles low level D&D, but 7th level old school D&D PCs can generally wade through hordes of foes more easily than my 5e group can.
The 5E DMG actually has morale check rules, along with rules to make it easier to sweep through waves of mooks. Something like the damage spilling over from one guy to another once they die. They're just simple add ons though, not an entire system.
Why are spellcasters weaker in 5E? Every time I show Pathfinder players the spellcasters they have an aneurism about how 5E isn't balanced and how they made cantrips and spellcasting even more OP and high damage.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856888Why are spellcasters weaker in 5E? Every time I show Pathfinder players the spellcasters they have an aneurism about how 5E isn't balanced and how they made cantrips and spellcasting even more OP and high damage.
Maybe they don't see the fact that spells don't naturally get better with caster level? Or that the DCs are all the same and they easily top out? Or they hadn't realized you get zero bonus spells for a high stat mod? Or The save/suck or die isn't nearly as debilitating or deadly as it was in 3e/Pathfinder?
I mean damage has never been a
Wizards thing in D&D 3e/Pathfidner and it's only slightly better now in 5e.
Well, it's not like they played, just took a cursory glance at the 5E PHB and dismissed it as "unbalanced baby mode." But yeah. I don't have enough experience with PF to make a comparison.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856888Why are spellcasters weaker in 5E? Every time I show Pathfinder players the spellcasters they have an aneurism about how 5E isn't balanced and how they made cantrips and spellcasting even more OP and high damage.
The Concentration rules are a serious nerf to all casters.
1. Lots of common spells are now Concentration spells, including buffs like Bless & Stoneskin. You can only have one going at a time - no Stoneskin + Fly, for instance.
2. Take damage, make a DC 10/half damage CON save or lose the spell.
Few casters have CON as a good save, so per RAW you get no Proficiency bonus, while damage numbers go up by level, at high level 22+ damage is common, but just rolling multiple DC 10 CON checks will do for most casters - eg my AC 18 Paladin eventually lost his Bless after numerous troglodyte attacks, Paladins don't get CON as a good save! This then creates a death spiral - you lost the buff, so you/your party are now more vulnerable to future damage.
You might think "well, don't get hit" - but 5e 'Bounded Accuracy' design means that monsters will almost always be able to hit PCs.
Quote from: S'mon;856782Here's my suggestions on hacking 5e - nothing radical but it gives my game a decidedly non-3e feel:
Good stuff!
Quote from: Phillip;856810@ Eric Diaz: Money, encumbrance and torches are not OOC concerns! They are just the sort of thing one deals with IN character.
Quote from: Arminius;856814Possibly there's a missing period after "not really" in that item.
Yup, I messed up! What I meant is that 5e is not really focused on IC resource management, more focused on OOC resources (spells, actions, etc). Just fixed it! Thanks!
Encumbrance is a huge pain in general, does anyone actually use it even in "old school" play? Like you have to keep track of so much stuff, and know all of their different weights, and where each thing is going to be stored, and constantly update all of it every time they sell some off or find new items...
And I don't think it ever even really becomes relevant in 5E.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856981Encumbrance is a huge pain in general, does anyone actually use it even in "old school" play? Like you have to keep track of so much stuff, and know all of their different weights, and where each thing is going to be stored, and constantly update all of it every time they sell some off or find new items...
And I don't think it ever even really becomes relevant in 5E.
Lots of people certainly did*. It was a significant limiting factor in OD&D that was used as a action mitigating factor, especially when coins were 1/10 lb. apiece. The logistics of how much equipment to bring into a dungeon vs. how much treasure you could bring out of it was part of the resource management sub-game. Perhaps why bags of holding are so iconic to the game. I agree that adding up equipment weights (especially before everyone could bring a laptop with a spreadsheet program with them to gaming) can be added work. Whether that's a nuisance or part of the fun is up to the individual.
*As the prime argument of this thread highlights, there's lots of ideas on how people really played.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856981Encumbrance is a huge pain in general, does anyone actually use it even in "old school" play? Like you have to keep track of so much stuff, and know all of their different weights, and where each thing is going to be stored, and constantly update all of it every time they sell some off or find new items...
In old school Fantasy Trip, yes, it was often a significant part of play. You wouldn't want to put porter minions out of a job, would you?
There's a much more reliable way to gauge old-schoolness.
Halflings.
If the halflings are fat, amiable, and no threat whatsoever...it's old school.
If the halflings are athletic and badass...it's not old school.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856981Encumbrance is a huge pain in general, does anyone actually use it even in "old school" play?
I do what I've always done: once every session or so, I eyeball a PCs' equipment list and if it looks odd, I start adding up weights (a.k.a. "encumbrance audit").
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856941Well, it's not like they played, just took a cursory glance at the 5E PHB and dismissed it as "unbalanced baby mode." But yeah. I don't have enough experience with PF to make a comparison.
Like S'mon said, Concentration is likely one of the biggest factors in keeping things balanced as it were. The damage cantrips do hasn't been a factor in the 5e games I run with damage being mostly dealt from the Fighter but it's significant enough that a wizard player doesn't feel useless when he's saving up his bigger spells for potentially greater threats in the day.
Quote from: Ghost;856997There's a much more reliable way to gauge old-schoolness.
Halflings.
If the halflings are fat, amiable, and no threat whatsoever...it's old school.
If the halflings are athletic and badass...it's not old school.
Those 4e halflings...*brrr*
5e halflings are pretty fat (especially their heads) and certainly look amiable.
Halflings are new school.
HOBBITSES are old school.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;857069Halflings are new school.
HOBBITSES are old school.
Once again you've bested me, old man.
Kobbit.
Quote from: Ghost;856997There's a much more reliable way to gauge old-schoolness.
Halflings.
If the halflings are fat, amiable, and no threat whatsoever...it's old school.
If the halflings are athletic and badass...it's not old school.
I went back to calling them Hobbits in my GURPS gameworld just because of D&D 3rd changing Halfings to sleek, athletic folks. I even have them get miffed when someone calls them a "halfling."
"Why, sir, I am half of nothing, but am the right and proper size for a Hobbit."
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;857094I went back to calling them Hobbits in my GURPS gameworld just because of D&D 3rd changing Halfings to sleek, athletic folks. I even have them get miffed when someone calls them a "halfling."
"Why, sir, I am half of nothing, but am the right and proper size for a Hobbit."
Thats pretty awesome. I just may steal that:)
In a similar vein to the Halfling Test:
If Orcs & Half-Orcs are unsavory at best and revel in wickedness at worst: old school.
If they're grossly misunderstood victims of prejudice: not so old school.
Quote from: Ghost;856997There's a much more reliable way to gauge old-schoolness. If the halflings are athletic and badass...it's not old school.
The D&D (Cook) Expert Set.... new school as fuck.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v407/krpeterson1/Capture_zpsrrgsjsy4.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/krpeterson1/media/Capture_zpsrrgsjsy4.png.html)
What is old school? I know it when I see it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it).
In my case, often (but not always) a useful warning label. ;)
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856981Encumbrance is a huge pain in general, does anyone actually use it even in "old school" play? Like you have to keep track of so much stuff, and know all of their different weights, and where each thing is going to be stored, and constantly update all of it every time they sell some off or find new items...
And I don't think it ever even really becomes relevant in 5E.
As the designers of RuneQuest put it, the ideal encumbrance rule is simply that a figure can't carry more than what's reasonable. Writing down a quantified encumbrance value and specific location for each item can be more work than is necessary.
Precision is not essential except as an arbitrary cutoff in edge cases. Usually the cases that really matter are sufficiently different to distinguish at a glance. The big question really is whether we're going to pay enough attention to notice those.
You're fighting with a two-handed sword while hauling a shield, a pike, a bow and arrows, two sacks of about 30 pounds each, and what else? How? (Answer: very awkwardly if at all!)
"Packs off!" was the word to soldiers in the American Civil War when they were to mount a charge with alacrity. Even hardcore French
chasseurs could keep up agility for only short periods while burdened. Soldiers today have been known to leave off body armor seen as excessive, as their forebears managed to 'lose' all sorts of equipment on campaign. (It was worth paying a fine to be rid of the saber, but the shovel was a life saver.)
The Spartan mother told her son, "Come back with your shield or on it," because casting the thing aside was a common way for cowards (or sensible fellows) to speed their flight from victory-hastened pursuers.
Unrealistic though it may be, slowed movement based on armor type adds a strategic trade-off. It might be rationalized as an abstraction of long-term slowing due to fatigue, plate armor not providing much ventilation and requiring more pauses from exertion to cool off. (That said, ancient light infantry skirmishers generally managed to stay out of reach of the heavies who could slaughter any they caught. The battle rules were simply carried over to the sub-tactical RPG level.)
Anyone who has worn a medieval style helm with padded hood (and possibly mail coif) knows that it muffles hearing and restricts vision as well as being hot and stuffy.
The rate of 10 coins to a pound in old D&D makes for troves weighing tons, not easy to carry off. Gems and jewelry are therefore precious beyond their cash value, for an experience point in the hand is worth more than any number left behind.
Yeah, some encumbrance monitoring is ok but pound by pound arbitrary limits makes one of the most effective possible weapons in the game a simple weight gun. Launch a blob of goo at your opponent that sticks for 0 damage and weighs 1 pound and watch them slow down. Fun for the whole family.
Quote from: estar;856622I did not know that it applied to monsters. Do you know where that stated? I am curious to read it myself.
Application to monsters is in fact what's stated in
Monsters and Treasure. For
Chainmail Fighting Capability, give the critter one roll of appropriate type per D&D Hit Die, with any bonus pips added to one of those.
The notion that the OSR is about forcing anything on anyone is contrary to what is evidently the main thrust: recovering the DIY, hobbyist to hobbyist, "make the game your own" ethos.
The business of business, convincing players they must buy the latest supplement for the latest non-back-compatible edition, is characteristic of a phase generally regarded as the opposite of "old school."
I'm not sure I can agree with that. Role-playing was a profit-making venture almost from the beginning. Likewise, the very first D&D supplement, Greyhawk, while theoretically backwards compatible, "changed everything" as much as many of the edition changes.
Quote from: Ghost;856997If the halflings are fat, amiable, and no threat whatsoever...it's old school.
If the halflings are athletic and badass...it's not old school.
Bullroarer Took was athletic and badass and definitely old school.
He is of what is called the old school—a phrase generally meaning any school that seems never to have been young.
Charles Dickens, Bleak House
Quote from: Willie the Duck;857239I'm not sure I can agree with that. Role-playing was a profit-making venture almost from the beginning.
I played Cowboys and Indians as a child -- as did almost everyone I know from that time -- and there was no profit in it. Commercial roleplaying games may have been "a profit-making venture almost from the beginning" but role-playing certainly was not.
QuoteLikewise, the very first D&D supplement, Greyhawk, while theoretically backwards compatible, "changed everything" as much as many of the edition changes.
GMs selected what to use from the OD&D supplements (just as they did from third party material. There was no pressure from TSR (or the vast majority of players) to allow everything published into your game at that time.
Quote from: RandallS;857443I played Cowboys and Indians as a child -- as did almost everyone I know from that time -- and there was no profit in it. Commercial roleplaying games may have been "a profit-making venture almost from the beginning" but role-playing certainly was not.
Um... okay.
QuoteGMs selected what to use from the OD&D supplements (just as they did from third party material. There was no pressure from TSR (or the vast majority of players) to allow everything published into your game at that time.
Just as it has been in every other edition.
From Internet discussion, I have the impression that there's quite a bit of pressure from players to have DMs play BtB, if not to include every supplement or 3rd-party product.
Back in the day, I think there were some letters to The Dragon on the same issue. I think the replies were strongly pro-DM, even though that would go against GG's habit of arguing for AD&D orthodoxy in his columns. Probably varies over time, and I didn't read enough to approximate a comprehensive survey.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;857452Just as it has been in every other edition.
Not that I've seen, and not to judge from what lots of other people have said over the years.
There's been a very pronounced shift in attitude, from the game being what hobbyists create in their campaigns to the game being a bought product; from handbooks being tools for the GM, to their being for players to cite (to "rules lawyer" in old parlance, which was a pejorative).
This has a pretty fundamental relationship to "style of play," and (more in the D&D scene than elsewhere) a correlation with complexity of rules sets.
The biggest difference I have actually seen at the table between old school and new school play has been the primary method players use to attempt to do anything.
I happened to have had the chance to run both OD&D and 5E in the past couple of years for a group with many of the same players in both games.
In the OD&D game the players interacted more with the setting and described what they wanted to do in plain language. The character sheet was rarely referenced and most often used for writing down acquired loot.
In the 5E game there was lot of " I want to make an X check" and the primary interaction attempts were with mechanics instead of setting elements. Most players would take at least a second or so to scan their character sheets before doing anything.
Mechanics first interactions can suck the life right out of play sometimes.
Quote from: Phillip;857459There's been a very pronounced shift in attitude, from the game being what hobbyists create in their campaigns to the game being a bought product; from handbooks being tools for the GM, to their being for players to cite (to "rules lawyer" in old parlance, which was a pejorative).
The DiYers were always a minority in the hobby. As well as the hard core By-the-book gamer. My experience is that refereeing Tabletop Roleplaying campaign has never been easy. People tend to use the rules as written as a way of managing the complexity of the game. Focusing their creativity on select areas that interest them.
The shift in attitude we seen is because for a long time we had a single company with dominant control over the hobby. This no longer the case so we have a golden age of D&D right now with a multitude of play styles and viewpoints being supported.
Quote from: Phillip;857188Application to monsters is in fact what's stated in Monsters and Treasure. For Chainmail Fighting Capability, give the critter one roll of appropriate type per D&D Hit Die, with any bonus pips added to one of those.
Do you have a page number by any chance? I can't find it.
I am asking because two decades ago I was wondering where the rule for damage was in OD&D core was. I searched and searched for it the life of me I could not find it. Well a decade after that I found it that it was omitted in the printing I have. I saw screen shots of page 19 and in my copy the sentence on the bottom that said that "All attacks do 1-6..." was not there.
It not a major thing but I would like to figure out where it like I did the damage rule.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;857470The biggest difference I have actually seen at the table between old school and new school play has been the primary method players use to attempt to do anything.
I happened to have had the chance to run both OD&D and 5E in the past couple of years for a group with many of the same players in both games.
In the OD&D game the players interacted more with the setting and described what they wanted to do in plain language. The character sheet was rarely referenced and most often used for writing down acquired loot.
In the 5E game there was lot of " I want to make an X check" and the primary interaction attempts were with mechanics instead of setting elements. Most players would take at least a second or so to scan their character sheets before doing anything.
Mechanics first interactions can suck the life right out of play sometimes.
I saw that in our Star Wars d20 game too. Drives me nuts.
Quote from: RandallS;857443I played Cowboys and Indians as a child -- as did almost everyone I know from that time -- and there was no profit in it. Commercial roleplaying games may have been "a profit-making venture almost from the beginning" but role-playing certainly was not.
It always confused me how my mom was fine with us playing racially motivated genocide but not war.
Quote from: estar;857480Well a decade after that I found it that it was omitted in the printing I have. I saw screen shots of page 19 and in my copy the sentence on the bottom that said that "All attacks do 1-6..." was not there.
When we started playing, all attacks did 1d6 of damage, but very soon after we began playing, less than a month or two after we started playing in 1977 someone in our group (I'm thinking Doug) picked up a copy of Greyhawk, and we immediately adopted variable weapons damage as a result. This improved our game play experience, and was also supported by the Judges Guild Wizard Guide, and other supplements as well.
Quote from: GameDaddy;857528When we started playing, all attacks did 1d6 of damage, but very soon after we began playing, less than a month or two after we started playing in 1977 someone in our group (I'm thinking Doug) picked up a copy of Greyhawk, and we immediately adopted variable weapons damage as a result. This improved our game play experience, and was also supported by the Judges Guild Wizard Guide, and other supplements as well.
Sure, Greyhawk is what turned OD&D into the game that most people recognize as classic D&D.
OD&D using only the core books (1d6 damage, etc) plays out a little different with a flatter power curve.
Quote from: estar;857480Do you have a page number by any chance? I can't find it.
Page 5, first page after the Monster Reference Table.
"
Attack/Defense capabilities versus
normal are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll."
A Troll counts as 6 Heavy Foot, so vs. Armored Foot it gets 3 dice, two killing on 6 and one killing on 3-6. Normal men without magic weapons cannot harm it.
QuoteI am asking because two decades ago I was wondering where the rule for damage was in OD&D core was.
Vol. 1, p. 19 (under the Attack Matrix): "All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points damage unless otherwise noted."
Vol. 2 notes otherwise for ogres, giants, elementals, djinns and efreets. Probably balrogs if your printing has 'em.
QuoteI searched and searched for it the life of me I could not find it. Well a decade after that I found it that it was omitted in the printing I have. I saw screen shots of page 19 and in my copy the sentence on the bottom that said that "All attacks do 1-6..." was not there.
It not a major thing but I would like to figure out where it like I did the damage rule.
Ah, yes. If all you have are older printings, the TSR errata sheet's text should be online somewhere -- probably at both OD&D Discussion and Knights & Knaves. The D&D FAQ is also nifty, covering ideas such as how to deal with orcs trying to overbear a PC.
Quote from: estar;857544Sure, Greyhawk is what turned OD&D into the game that most people recognize as classic D&D.
OD&D using only the core books (1d6 damage, etc) plays out a little different with a flatter power curve.
I favor modifying roll to hit instead of normal weapon damage roll. A +/- 2 makes more proportional difference vs. better ACs and when you're lower level, and is usually the difference between bands of levels.
Quote from: Phillip;857617Page 5, first page after the Monster Reference Table.
"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll."
A Troll counts as 6 Heavy Foot, so vs. Armored Foot it gets 3 dice, two killing on 6 and one killing on 3-6. Normal men without magic weapons cannot harm it.
Thanks. I figured what happened. I normally use the PDFs I bought off of RPGNow before Wizards pulled their catalog. That section did not scan. When I checked my physical copy I found it. So thanks.
Quote from: Phillip;857617Vol. 1, p. 19 (under the Attack Matrix): "All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points damage unless otherwise noted."
Now that is missing from my physical copy which I bought around 1980,81. It was a White Box Original Collector's Edition. I also got the Wooden Box reprint which of course has it.
Mmm which reminds to hop over on Acaeum and see what they know about that.
Quote from: Phillip;857617Ah, yes. If all you have are older printings, the TSR errata sheet's text should be online somewhere -- probably at both OD&D Discussion and Knights & Knaves. The D&D FAQ is also nifty, covering ideas such as how to deal with orcs trying to overbear a PC.
I got that stuff. The monster attacks was something I missed though. I need to re-read my originals and not my PDFs again to see what else I can pick up. I hope Wizards gets the OD&D reprints PDF out sometime.
Again thanks.
Quote from: Phillip;857621I favor modifying roll to hit instead of normal weapon damage roll. A +/- 2 makes more proportional difference vs. better ACs and when you're lower level, and is usually the difference between bands of levels.
Another technique I found interesting that in lieu of a larger dice of damage or bonuses roll 2d6 and take the highest for your damage. I think Philotomy recommends this for making two handed weapons better than their one handed counterparts.
Quote from: estar;857625Another technique I found interesting that in lieu of a larger dice of damage or bonuses roll 2d6 and take the highest for your damage. I think Philotomy recommends this for making two handed weapons better than their one handed counterparts.
That's exactly how I do it. It gives the player an advantage while avoiding yet another "plus," and it also maintains the same ceiling on maximum damage output.