# My Response to the Grognardia Essay "More Than a Feeling"



## joethelawyer (May 24, 2009)

James Maliszewski posted this essay over on Grognardia, which really rubbed me the wrong way. Which lead me to try to write a paragraph in response, which lead to this response.  I figured I'd post it here, as the topic might generate some decent discussion.

His essay is here.  

GROGNARDIA: More Than a Feeling


My response is below.  I couldn't post it over there because it was too long.

I think the very idea of a rigid definition flies in the face of what the old school renaissance represents.  Plus, it is totally subjective as to what old school is.  It varies from person to person.  Some just want the nostalgic feeling of playing an old game they used to play when they were 13.  Some just want fast resolution with less rolls. Some want megadungeons.  Some define it as strict adherence to a certain ruleset or clone.  Who cares?

I guess my question is, what does it matter? If someone asks you what old school is, define it however you want to. It is different for everyone and will be defined differently by everyone.  

Even that 13 page essay by Finch which summed up what old school was all about

http://www.lulu.com/content/e-book/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/3019374

listed some things that not every group in 1976 did.  OD&D was, from what I understand, the most heavily houseruled game in existence.  Hence AD&D. Look at your own game James, and the huge changes you implemented to the core rules.

This old school thing has a life of its own, and it is driven first and foremost by FEELING.  People felt dissatisfied with what they were playing, and wanted to either capture or recapture another feeling while playing.  For some it was a feeling they used to have when playing at age 13, for some it was trying to feel what those others were talking about.  

This game is driven first and foremost by feeling.  We don't play it for any other reason.  It's a feeling of fun flavored with various aspects of whichever version of the game we are playing.  To the extent that a ruleset or adventure or DM flavors that feeling with something considered by players to be old school, its completely subjective as to what that thing is which gives the feeling, because the feeling is subjective.

You can't objectively create through definition that which creates a subjective feeling in a player.

I think in trying to define it you will fulfill the prediction made by EN Shook on Lord of the Green Dragons here:

Lord of the Green Dragons: Old School vs. New School

Wherein he basically predicts that old school degenerate into fundamentalism.  This post of yours seems to be leading the charge.

I have to ask what purpose would a definition serve?  So you can give the 2 minute elevator sales speech to someone using terms consistent with everyone else?  To what ends?  So the game grows?  So more people play?  So more sales are made of old school clones? What's the ultimate goal you are shooting for? What's the ultimate vision you have?        

The only thing you say as to a reason why it matters is:

 “If the old school is just a feeling, then it's purely subjective and beyond our capacity to argue for.”  

And “Likewise, when a player of such games claims he's doing so "in an old school style," I have no recourse but to accept him at his word and move on, because no argument could possibly be offered to disprove his feeling that he's playing an old school game.”

And “If one actually believes, as I do, that games like OD&D, Tunnels & Trolls, Empire of the Petal Throne, and so forth offer something unique that no game published in the last 20 years can match, then we ought not to rest our case too heavily on nebulous quasi-emotional impressions. I think there are enough clear, rational, and unambiguous arguments in favor of the old school that there's very little need to invoke feelings at all.”

What’s this big need you have to argue in favor of a particular game or group of games?  Who cares?  To argue implies that you think you’re right. And to a certain extent, you may be. For some people.  But it’s all subjective and based on the feelings those people would get if they played those games. Nobody plays a game because of the nature of the mechanics of it.  They play because the mechanics help them to create a game that makes them feel good playing it. If you think those games might do that for a person, then just recommend those rulesets to those people.  No definition needed.  No need to argue

The reasons you like old school games are yours, and might be shared by many people. However, your reasons for liking old school games may not appeal to a ton of people who nonetheless play older rulesets.  To think that your reasons are the right and true reasons to the extent that you feel the need to fix definitions so that you can better argue your case that old school games have a lot to offer, I think you slip into arrogance.  People argue because each thinks they are right. How can ou be right when this whole thing is subjective and driven by feelings?

You can't control this thing.  It will grow with or without a definition. People will keep checking out different boards, games, blogs, and make their own definition of old school based on a feeling. They might even start up a game and call it old school–and the game will be something completely different than yours. Those players then have a definition of old school in their heads. They spread that definition far and wide.  

Old School to me is like a constantly mutating virus, changing all the time by interacting with its host's DNA, the DM's and Players, and then getting passed on to others.  Rather than making them feel sick, this virus makes them feel good. All based on feelings.  Who cares if the virus is different from one player or DM to another, as long as it makes them feel good?

If people ask me what an old school game is I just point them in the direction of certain boards, blogs, rulesets, essays and clones. I let them figure it out for themselves. Sometimes their definition of what old school is comes close to mine, sometimes its radically different. But when they say they are laying an old school game now thanks to their investigation of the various websites and games, and I see that they are happy, I say good for them.  

I don’t see how your strict definition of what old school is actually grows the old school renaissance.  Since there are so many definitions out there, most of which seem to be based primarily on feelings, if you exclude them because they don’t share your definition, you just shrink the members of the old school renaissance as defined by you.  Which leads to accusations of bad/fun/wrong. Leading to alienation. Leading to people dismissing us as a bunch of crotchety old people who don’t welcome new people unless they enter the renaissance on our terms because of our definitions.  Is that the result you are looking for?

One last point I want to make is that feelings drive this industry. Feelings either for or against are what makes people do or not do something. People are not rational creatures.  You assume you can lay out a Mr. Spock style rational argument in favor of one system and get people to play?  What's more convincing, an essay based on clear definitions of something laying out the logical reasons why something is good?  Or a friend, who when asked why they like their particular style of old school game, gushes out with  joy and enthusiasm all kinds of subjective reasons, but puts them out there with such a FEELING of happiness that its infectious and gets that friend to ask if they can join in their game?  Which option will grow the old school  renaissance more?


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 24, 2009)

I agree wholeheartedly with him.

[edit]

I forgot the 'why'. 

Old school refers to a playstyle, one that is facilitated by games systems that are sparser and more sprightly when it comes to preparation and resolution, and that focus more on player skill than character skill in certain areas of gameplay. Well, that's a start. _*This does not mean that one is 'better' than the other. PLEASE remember this when debating what old school is or isn't - it will help no end.*_ But yeah, they are distinctly DIFFERENT.

And hey, for those of you still sceptical (or worse), here's some text from Mr. Mike Mearls, primary creator of 4e, in 2008:


A lot of the fun parts of the session (the talking skull; the undead and their bargain) were possible under any edition of D&D. However, I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"

The thing I like best about OD&D monsters is that they are simple to run and easy to improvise. It was nice to simply write down AC, damage, and hit dice. On the other hand, I missed the variety of weird effects and tactics that 4e monsters can use independent of any work I put into them as a DM. The two approaches are very different.

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised. I can write rules without worrying about strict interpretations or covering every possible case. The players, since they've agreed to sit down at an OD&D table, are probably more likely to accept random craziness and a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check).

To be honest, I think the games are different enough that I easily have space for both of them in my library. For me, they fill very different needs. OD&D is like jamming with a band. A lot of stuff gets made up on the fly, and when we find something interesting everyone just rides with it. D&D 4 is like playing a symphony. There's more structure and more pieces to work with, but everything comes together in this grand ensemble.​
link

[/edit]


----------



## the Jester (May 24, 2009)

If your post is too long to post over there, why not split it in two or even three pieces? That way you can keep the discussion going, rather than each of you having a series of monologues.

Honestly, I'm not interested in jumping back and forth between two forums to watch an Internet argument over what old school gaming is. If it's all in one place, maybe.


----------



## DaveMage (May 24, 2009)

As James (and you) indicates, part of what defines old-school is emotional, and thus subjective.  

He's trying to define what it is outside of the subjective response.

It's an interesting idea, but not an exercise that I think will bear much fruit.  (Although it could certainly generate a lot of discussion.)

For me, "old school" in relation to D&D is the approach mainly used in 1E - few(er) rules, and adventures being site-based and plot-light.


----------



## joethelawyer (May 24, 2009)

the Jester said:


> If your post is too long to post over there, why not split it in two or even three pieces? That way you can keep the discussion going, rather than each of you having a series of monologues.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not interested in jumping back and forth between two forums to watch an Internet argument over what old school gaming is. If it's all in one place, maybe.




I posted a link to my response over there, so people could read it and comments on it over there.  I posted it over here, because I interact with you guys daily, and am interested in what you guys have to say on the topic.  I figure that most of the 70,000 members over here don't read or post over there.


----------



## kitsune9 (May 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> James Maliszewski posted this essay over on Grognardia, which really rubbed me the wrong way. Which lead me to try to write a paragraph in response, which lead to this response.  I figured I'd post it here, as the topic might generate some decent discussion.




Nice comments Joe. 

To me, I can see the essay writer's point because it often is applied to the mode of thinking for other things that were in the past and people who longed for X or Y like in the "old days". However, RPGs I think are in a special category. I don't play OD&D, AD&D 1e or 2e, but I have no criticisms for people who play those games. Some don't upgrade to the current rpgs because of economics, others because the game "does it" for them, and and a few because it's a matter of principle to never switch. I have a friend who is a diehard Dragonquest player.


----------



## the Jester (May 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> I posted a link to my response over there, so people could read it and comments on it over there.  I posted it over here, because I interact with you guys daily, and am interested in what you guys have to say on the topic.  I figure that most of the 70,000 members over here don't read or post over there.




I guess I didn't want to follow a link to another site to read what you're responding to, so it seemed silly to read the response. Sorry if this sounds like a threadcrap- I can see your point in wanting more feedback. It's just the "too lazy to make that extra click" phenomenon, I guess.


----------



## Glyfair (May 24, 2009)

Ironically, I think the need to categorize and have strict definitions is a "new school" RPG phenomenon that many old school players dislike.


----------



## Oni (May 24, 2009)

Well mark me as underwhelmed with the original article.  

He seems very insistent that it not be emotional, not because it isn't but rather because of how it appears to those outside.  I see a need to created a separation, an us versus them environment here just so some fellow can tell some other fellow, "no, your doing it wrong".


----------



## Oni (May 24, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> Ironically, I think the need to categorize and have strict definitions is a "new school" RPG phenomenon that many old school players dislike.




That's just human habit and doesn't have anything to do with rpg's IMHO.  If it is more noticeable today than in the past I would submit that comes down largely to two factors.  The internet, and thus the sheer volume of interaction of the fan community has made it more visible.  More games to categorize, you really can't have more categories than you have things to stick in them.


----------



## Baron Opal (May 24, 2009)

Where does James define "old school"?


----------



## avin (May 24, 2009)

I'm a modern player. Old school style is not for me


----------



## Ariosto (May 24, 2009)

That essay is not without context; it is a response to "dismissals of the old school movement".

Dismissal is not recognition of validity. It is not, "Well, I prefer the latest products from White Wolf and Wizards, but you prefer an older style, and that's okay because different people like different things."

Dismissal is, "Well, there's really no substantial difference at all. The objective particulars may be radically different, but if you don't get just the same 'feeling' from this new game then that's just your subjective impression."

While it does not logically follow, the appeal to irrationality sets up: "So, you are not permitted to promote your game -- but publishers and fans can promote New Game X. Your views are irrelevant, and it is wrong of you to express them."

Preference itself is subjective, and there is nothing right or wrong about it. The dismissal of observations concerning different game-mechanical approaches and their effects on the process of play, though, is disingenuous and contrary to critical analysis.

There are *objective* differences to which people respond in subjective ways. To claim that one likes the latest novelty better because "it's just the same" is simply absurd.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 24, 2009)

I think you can't really put it down to anything _other _than 'feeling' and nostalgia.


----------



## Cadfan (May 24, 2009)

Why bother having a club if you can't exclude people from it?

What you're perhaps not seeing is that the "feelings" driving this sort of thing are only in part "feelings" about what games "feel" what ways.  They also involve "feelings" about who's "one of us" and who isn't.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 24, 2009)

The part of the essay at Grognardia that rubbed me a bit the wrong way was:



> Likewise, when a player of such games claims he's doing so "in an old school style," I have no recourse but to accept him at his word and move on, because no argument could possibly be offered to disprove his feeling that he's playing an old school game.




I like playing 4e, yet I inject some old school style in it by having some plot-light regions, some site based adventures, as well as some dungeons with not-so-realistic ecologies.

I also play up the idea that the rules for PCs are different than the rules for NPCs, Monsters and their environs.  Not that the world "physics" are different for PCs, but that there are options for NPCs and Monsters that don't exist for PCs.  i.e. if I want a monster to have some cool ability or something, then they can have it.  I don't need a book of stats to play it out.  Also, for me, old school style presumes a fair amount of "winging it" and DM Fiat.

Now, because I inject these into my 4e game, I feel like I DM 4e in an old-school style.

Why would he "have no recourse but to accept" my ideas?   There is a difference between playing an old school game and playing a modern game with some old school sensibilities.  I am not playing an old school RULESET, but I like some old school style.  

Is there be some need to prove that I am not playing an old school game?  

Most of the reasons I don't like some of the old school games as much as I used to are because of game mechanics issues, but I an still try to achieve the FEEL that I got from old school games.


----------



## Treebore (May 24, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> As James (and you) indicates, part of what defines old-school is emotional, and thus subjective.
> 
> He's trying to define what it is outside of the subjective response.
> 
> ...




Agreed. The only thing I would add is we (we being the people I game with) play Castles and Crusades because we love the "feel" of how the game goes. We play 1E, and campaign in Mystara/Known World and Greyhawk, because we love how the game plays over other editions and iterations of it. Simply put, we have more FUN with the versions we play than the other versions. I/we do NOT say the other editions and iterations are not fun, only that we have less fun with them than we do with what we do play.

So I agree more with James than Joel. There is definitely an emotional/"feel" component to everything, but the reasons aside from feelings we play what we do is the mechanics add to our fun, not detract from it by turning it into work and a burden.

3E and 4E have a lot of cool and fun elements to them, but those elements also add a lot of complexity and mental work to everything you do, even just moving your PC (AoO's, I am GLARING at you!) . So we have discovered "simple and gets the job done" is not only easier, but allows for much more of a "simple and fun game" experience rather than the mentally exhausting, yet still fun, feel 3E and 4E gives us.

So rather than get into all thsi edition wars crap I play what gives me the most fun, and just get over the fact that others find 3E and 4E more fun than I do. "To each there own" is a truism after all, on many levels, and in many ways.

Edit: Let me also add that despite the fact that I find 4E the least fun edition/iteration of D&D yet, my feelings did not keep me from going and playing in World Wide D&D Day yesterday for over 5 hours. I still had fun too!

So you edition/iteration superiority people keep up your fights! Meanwhile I'll be sneaking around playing and having fun where ever I can find it.


----------



## joethelawyer (May 24, 2009)

Treebore said:


> Agreed. The only thing I would add is we (we being the people I game with) play Castles and Crusades because we love the "feel" of how the game goes. We play 1E, and campaign in Mystara/Known World and Greyhawk, because we love how the game plays over other editions and iterations of it. Simply put, we have more FUN with the versions we play than the other versions. I/we do NOT say the other editions and iterations are not fun, only that we have less fun with them than we do with what we do play.
> 
> So I agree more with James than Joel. There is definitely an emotional/"feel" component to everything, but the reasons aside from feelings we play what we do is the mechanics add to our fun, not detract from it by turning it into work and a burden.




Good points. But in his essay, he says that "...the continued success of the old school renaissance depends greatly on promoting the unique qualities of older games in a clear and rational fashion."

How would you feel if the official defining qualities which are decided upon exclude C&C as a game with that "old school" feel?

Even if it didn't affect you personally, how would you feel if it affected detrimentally the # of people who give C&C a try because it didn't fit the arbitrary exclusionary definitions regarding essential mechanics needed for an old school game?  These definitions propounded by a bunch of middle aged guys on a few very popular blogs and boards, affect people who are investigating what old school is all about.  What if there came to be a list of old school games, ranked according to how well they fit the arbitrary definitions of essential qualities?  What if C&C was way down on or off the list entirely?  The new guys, chekcing out old school, read the list, and never try C&C.  

That's the big reason his essay rubbed me the wrong way.  By trying to isolate certain qualities in older games which fit an arbitrary old school criteria, he is in essence defining what old school is, and more importantly for games like C&C, what it isn't.  Seems a bit presumptuous to me.

While the mechanics can drive the feelings of enjoyment one gets from a game, ultimately it is the feelings of fun which drive people to play a game, not the mechanics.  Trying to define mechanics or other criteria which define old school means they are effectively saying that "You can call what you are doing fun, but please don't call it old school.  We want to keep that definition clean and pure, as defined by us."


----------



## Mark (May 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> (. . .) a bunch of middle aged guys on a few very popular blogs and boards (. . .)





Popular being the relative term.


----------



## Ariosto (May 24, 2009)

> Why would he "have no recourse but to accept" my ideas? There is a difference between playing an old school game and playing a modern game with some old school sensibilities. I am not playing an old school RULESET, but I like some old school style.



That part indeed was poorly put, conflating the claim to play "in an old school style" (early in the sentence) with "playing an old school game" at the end.

However, it is just such conflation that figures in the rhetoric of dismissal. It's a cherry picking of things, with the assertion that other things therefore do not matter. At its most egregious, it is the claim that there's no difference in the games because to some degree one chooses to _ignore_ the difference.

Could one play Game X without the skill system, skill challenges and challenge ratings? Could one "house rule" it into a form that lets one get through four encounters per hour instead of just one, or that puts less emphasis on combat, or that involves the same resource management as Game Y?

To that and many other questions, the answer naturally is "yes". But that is to avoid addressing the designs in themselves ... which is of course the point!


----------



## Treebore (May 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Good points. But in his essay, he says that "...the continued success of the old school renaissance depends greatly on promoting the unique qualities of older games in a clear and rational fashion."
> 
> How would you feel if the official defining qualities which are decided upon exclude C&C as a game with that "old school" feel?
> 
> ...




I don't worry about it. Thats for the individuals to discover.

I think of it in terms of the time worn phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink". This is because in order for anyone to try C&C, or any other "old school" iteration, is for them to get to a point where they are thirsty for what it has to offer in the first place.

Plus I keep in mind that some tasteless people like Coke (I kid!), rather than love the far superior taste of Pepsi. What this helps me keep in mind is that everyones tastes differ. So Castles and Crusades fit my tastes almost to perfection. The tastes of others may make 1E their perfect game, or 2E, or OD&D, or Chainmail, or 3E, or 4E, or GURPS, or Rolemaster, or Ruequest, etc...

So rather than try and "TELL" someone what and how they should be gaming I try to just say, "This is what I do and why." If it sounds appealing to them, they will give it a look. If not, they aren't ready to appreciate the flavors it has to offer. Some day maybe they will. Until then I have plenty of people with which to do the gaming I like to do, even on WW D&D Day. At which I met two other fans of Castles and Crusades, but we all sat down and played 4E for 5 hours, and we had fun. Just that 3 of us agreed we would be having more fun if we were using C&C as the system. Still, we had fun playing 4E despite our taste preferences.

So my personal feelings are that we should all get over thinking we each play the best and most correct and most righteous version of a game, and just learn to unite under the banner of "We play RPG's!" and all have fun.

So if someone wishes to play a specific edition of D&D for the rest of their lives, thats fine. I will still think it is their loss, and that they should at least try out the other versions and systems for a little while, as well as other RPG's such as Shadowrun, L5R, ad infinitum...

Bottom line is, as long as I am having fun, and have friends with which to have that fun with, I am not going to allow myself to get worked up into a frenzy because someone else dares to play something different.

Now if they try and tell me how their game is superior to mine and how I am all wrong for playing it... Well, lets just say a swift kick to the crotch, or a haymaker to their jaw line might result. At the very least I will shake my head in pity and walk away.

I will do my best to stay out of edition wars, though. Its not worth the aggravation, and the bottom line is, "You can lead a gamer to the table, but you can't make him play."


----------



## joethelawyer (May 24, 2009)

Mark said:


> Popular being the relative term.





Yup.  Sheer # of posts on a particular topic and the accolades which one earns from those posts does not give a guy the right to then define the essential qualities of the subject matter he posts about. Especialy when the subject matter is subjectively shared by thousands of people.  He can certainly try, but the slapdown he is getting for it is the natural response to that bit of hubris.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 24, 2009)

The feeling came back, whenever I played 3.5 oldschool... 

it may be more tha a feeling... but its most of it^^

I personally play many different RPGs (old school and new school?), and all in all its the same feeling: an evening where no dice are rolled is a good evening... 

Andwhen dice are rolled, i am more happy with modern sytems


----------



## Ariosto (May 24, 2009)

> How would you feel if it affected detrimentally the # of people who give C&C a try because it didn't fit the arbitrary exclusionary definitions regarding essential mechanics needed for an old school game?



While promoters of Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf are busy defining old games as not FUN®, or at least as _badwrongfun?_

C&C may not be able to use the "d20 System" trademark, but its boosters can certainly draw attention (as do those of 4E) to the game's deployment of a familiar basic mechanic in a more streamlined and easy to learn complete system. It cannot use the "D&D" trademark, but fans can point to similarities with old games and the ease with which they are able to use materials published with those in mind.

Either of those may be a feature to one person and a flaw to another.

Is not this dismissal of the legitimacy of the term "old school" yet another "good for the goose but taboo for the gander" rhetorical trick? (More precisely: good for a big corporation, but _verboten_ to hobbyists.)

The whole "what if" aspect is weaselly in the first place. As far as I know, J.M. has not set out to define C&C as "beyond the pale" of old school. If he has, then it certainly has not removed the game from its place at Dragonsfoot! I have seen no indication that any blog has kept anyone from trying 4E who was otherwise inclined to do so -- so why should it so influence decisions as to whether to give C&C a go?

Grognardia is not "official" in any way, nor is there _any_ officialdom of old school. As to "D&D" on the other hand ... Hasbro owns the trademark. No difference?


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 24, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> While Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf are busy defining old games as not FUN®, or at least as _badwrongfun?_



Uh, where are they so defined by said parties, again?

A point of reference will help, for those who might hesitate to simply believe on sight.


----------



## Mark (May 24, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Yup.  Sheer # of posts on a particular topic and the accolades which one earns from those posts does not give a guy the right to then define the essential qualities of the subject matter he posts about. Especialy when the subject matter is subjectively shared by thousands of people.  He can certainly try, but the slapdown he is getting for it is the natural response to that bit of hubris.





We're still talking about "old school" in relation to gaming at large, right?  It's not as if "old school" is a term that can stand on its own, since it is a comparative term.  I think what is happening is that there is a broad use of the term "old school" when someone wishes to point up the so-called numbers of adherents but when one begins to uncover that to which those adherents actually adhere the modifiers hardly stack as well as some might have others believe.  There were about one hundred and fifty of us "old schoolers" at GeryCon in Lake Geneva this last March and I can tell you that the diversity in gaming styles and preferences were very broad indeed.  But even new games quickly begin to lose their cohesion as repeated play breeds house rules and as some supplements are received at some game tables while others are not.  The more time that has passed, the less likely that a colloquialism will truly cover its intended scope.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 24, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> While promoters of Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf are busy defining old games as not FUN®, or at least as _badwrongfun?_



Wait a sec.... where have statements come from White Wolf and WotC that define old games as not fun or badwrongfun?  It helps if you support these claims otherwise others might see this as a fact and not just vague misinterpretations propogated by those that disagree with said companies ideas about what to do with their IP.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Aus_Snow!

EDIT 2: Pirated by Aus_Snow! (wait.... Plundered? Shanghai'd? Scallywag'd?)


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 24, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> EDIT: Ninja'd by Aus_Snow!



Rest assured, ninjae are _not_ old school. 



Spoiler



. . . but pirates are.


----------



## Mark (May 24, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wait a sec.... where have statements come from White Wolf and WotC that define old games as not fun or badwrongfun?





I think it is fairly common knowledge that any promotion of a new edition carries with it a certain amount of, at least by implicaiton, pointing up previous editions as somehow inadequate.  Anyone who doesn't understand that as part and parcel of necessary marketing and hype isn't going to be convinced by a link or two pointing to any statements that might even directly say that older games are inferior.  Oddly, that same marketing engine must also convince some fans that the new game is virtually the (or is it "zee") same.


----------



## Treebore (May 24, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wait a sec.... where have statements come from White Wolf and WotC that define old games as not fun or badwrongfun?  It helps if you support these claims otherwise others might see this as a fact and not just vague misinterpretations propogated by those that disagree with said companies ideas about what to do with their IP.
> 
> EDIT: Ninja'd by Aus_Snow!
> 
> EDIT 2: Pirated by Aus_Snow! (wait.... Plundered? Shanghai'd? Scallywag'd?)




Some people actually read WOTC blogs and interviews of their employees, etc.... when they were marketing/preparing the customer base to convert to the new edition.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 24, 2009)

Treebore said:


> Some people actually read WOTC blogs and interviews of their employees, etc.... when they were marketing/preparing the customer base to convert to the new edition.



I actually did, so I can play! Neither ignorant nor naive? Nay, for I am a marvel of geekdom! Arr.

What I read a lot of was how bad *3e* is, in comparison with 4e. Interestingly, this seems to have flowed on to, or coincided with, a very large (or at least vocal) group of 4e players on forums. Just as was the case with 2e, when 3e came around. 2e was _quite_ the thing to hate on. Now, 3e. 

_Nothing_ about actual old school games, or 'old games' (as I seem to recall the line went).

But links are certainly welcome.


----------



## Remathilis (May 24, 2009)

Treebore said:


> Some people actually read WOTC blogs and interviews of their employees, etc.... when they were marketing/preparing the customer base to convert to the new edition.




WotC Ad Copy: 

"Say! Why don't you check out our new fourth edition! Check out its encounter-building system. See? It builds encounters faster & easier than before! Not that there was anything WRONG with our old methods of encounter building. In fact, you can still USE them if you want. You can use whatever you want of our old systems because they're every bit as good as our NEW system! Try 4e today!"


----------



## Mikaze (May 24, 2009)

Well there was "Unnecessary symmetry, ugly backstory, yaddayadda" too now.

Personally I'm with the crowd that says "old school" shouldn't be too strongly defined because it simply can't.  Videogamers can't agree on what old-school is exactly, RPGers sure as hell aren't going to be able too.  

Hell, I'm not sure hip-hop's definition is still what it was five years ago.


----------



## Remathilis (May 24, 2009)

Personally, I have to put my money with the Green Dragon blog: the old-school Renaissance ALREADY is excluding certain elements of the D&D back-catalog and focusing on others. 

Where is the BECMI/Rule Cyclopedia Retro-clone? There isn't one. There are two Mentzer and B/X clones, but none that have elf-as-class, law/neu/chaos alignments or maxed leveling at 36. 

Where is the Second Edition Retro-clone? Oh, right. "Old school" players would rather forget second edition even happened. AD&D 1e gets all sorts of fond memories and even its own clone (OSRIC) but 2e is regarded as an abomination; too recent to be "old school", to archaic to be "new school." 

Currently, the "old school" Renaissance mostly consists of people who gamed during the late 70's and early 80's trying to recapture the games of that era. The mood, tone, style, and even artwork and typesetting evokes the feeling of those pre-1984 gaming, and lets everything else go hang. It comes off sounding like the "rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia" because it ignores (willfully or otherwise) any and all innovations for the past 15 years.

Well, it tries. I wonder how many people (to use the blog's example) re-rolls hp every day? How many "borrow" spells and classes and races from later editions? Heck, nearly every retro-clone has an option to "ascend" AC, a D&D innovation that didn't see official production until 2000. 

Now, if you enjoy that sort of game, more power to you. I reject the notion that OD&D, 1e, or a derived retro-clone is any more "pure" than 2e, Pathfinder, or 4e.


----------



## Ariosto (May 24, 2009)

Nah. You'll never see anyone here at Enworld knocking any aspect of old-school play. And you'll never see anyone anywhere holding up AD&D in particular as a model of bad design, or World of Darkness as the light that led RPGs out of the dark age. Nope, there's no hint of superiority at all in the drumbeat of dismissal.

Or rather, the prejudices go down easy if one happens to share them. Maybe even easier when sugar coated with the sorts of false claims that might wear thin if reason were admissible. Instead, it must be dismissed with Bulverism. Any positive statement concerning an "old school" design is nothing but silly "nostalgia", and therefore wrong.

When the shoe is on the foot of someone kicking it, the minority can be identified. Yet it is somehow improper for the minority to claim its _own_ identity.


----------



## Ariosto (May 24, 2009)

> Where is ...



On the way. Of course, if you so passionately desire this or that then you can go ahead and do the work to make it yourself. Whence this sense of entitlement to have someone else deliver x, y, and z YESTERDAY?. 







> It comes off sounding like the "rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia" because it ignores (willfully or otherwise) any and all innovations for the past 15 years.



No; it _rejects_ many innovations in the context of certain games.


----------



## Ariosto (May 24, 2009)

The predicate to creating a 2E retro-clone, obviously, is acknowledging that it is indeed not "just the same as" 1E.

Such acknowledgment, without equating difference with some absolute standard of superiority and inferiority, is all the "old school" asks -- and what the "new school" too often begrudges.


----------



## mearls (May 24, 2009)

D&D is such a subjective, personal thing that trying to push everyone's experience with it into a single box is a waste of time.

To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.

The specific mechanics behind the game and its setting are irrelevant. A simpler game does make sense, since the DM can pretty much do whatever he wants, but it is by no means a necessity.

I imagine that some people might agree with that, while others would completely disagree. The games *you* played define what old school means to you. It's a mistake to assume that there's some sort of platonic ideal of what gaming in any era was or is supposed to be. The beauty of gaming is that we all do our own thing.

I think there are a lot of parallels between the old school movement and the indie movement. Both started around what I see as fairly simple concepts. The indie movement eventually gathered a lot of baggage that hampered its growth, a sort of "us vs. them" vibe that turned away people. It'd be a pity to see the same thing happen again.


----------



## Treebore (May 24, 2009)

You know what else "old school" is? Using 10 foot poles to check the ground in front of you for pit traps and other dangers.

Using flour to throw in the air to reveal any invisible opponents nearby.

Using a table to pin goblins against the wall.

Picking up a table and slamming it over your opponents head.

Actually NOT finding a trap until you set it off.

Not finding secret doors because they are so finely crafted you simply are not good enough to find it. Yet.

Drawing out the map as you go to see if you get it right.

Having a vorpal sword or staff of the Magi, not because its appropriate for your level, but because ITS SO COOL!!

Thats the old school I like.


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

mearls said:


> To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.
> 
> The specific mechanics behind the game and its setting are irrelevant. A simpler game does make sense, since the DM can pretty much do whatever he wants, but it is by no means a necessity.
> 
> I imagine that some people might agree with that, while others would completely disagree.





That is strange because the games we played in the mid-Seventies were more like what some now call sandbox games where the DM created as large a world as time permitted and the players were free to explore it as their own narrative unfolded.  The players would be asked, generally, what their long(er)term intentions might be so that the DM could create as many options along those lines but the choices were fairly wide and any hint of railroading was unwelcome.  All the players knew the mechanics (there were few in the early days) as well as the DM and most took their turn behind the screen.  It's pretty much the same way my current group plays the game when I am behind the screen nowadays.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The predicate to creating a 2E retro-clone, obviously, is acknowledging that it is indeed not "just the same as" 1E.
> 
> Such acknowledgment, without equating difference with some absolute standard of superiority and inferiority, is all the "old school" asks -- and what the "new school" too often begrudges.




I see what you're doing.

By that standard, no edition beyond 1974 should be getting a clone, since they are all "imitations of the original" (as Dialgo puts it). 

But since you asked...

1.) The Sphere system which allowed greater customization of priesthoods.
2.) The expansion of school specialization beyond "illusion" and including alternates to the "8 schools" in later books.
3.) Kits
4.) Non-weapon proficiencies
5.) Bards playable from first level

I'd go on, but I'm not sure anything else would meet your standards of "superiority/inferiority"


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> By that standard ... since you asked... your standards of "superiority/inferiority" ...



HUH???

There's no such standard there. Your reference has no referent.

What I proposed was "acknowledgment, *without* equating difference with some absolute standard of superiority and inferiority". My personal "standards" (i.e., preferences) are not privileged over yours.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (May 25, 2009)

I liked Mr. Mearls description.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> HUH???
> 
> There's no such standard there. Your reference has no referent.
> 
> What I proposed was "acknowledgment, *without* equating difference with some absolute standard of superiority and inferiority". My personal "standards" (i.e., preferences) are not privileged over yours.




Ok, put that into English and I'll answer it, because something got lost in communication.

Because what I read was "Explain to me what 2e brings to the table without using the the phrase '2e is better than 1e because...'".


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

mearls said:
			
		

> To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.



 So, does that make 4E _even more_ "old school" than 0E?

Old-school players tend to express "giving the DM narrative control" with the pithy term "railroad"; it has in most cases a negative connotation. There is also a pretty objective (but not exclusive) denotation that can become pretty clear if one makes a flow-chart of a scenario. What is often called today a "sandbox" cannot be reduced much more toward that than the map itself.

From an old-school perspective, "mechanical control of the game" in modern designs tends to reside (by cession) mainly in their voluminous rules-books -- not in the DM or players. The experience of _reclaiming_ control when returning to older modes is often remarked upon.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Ok, put that into English and I'll answer it, because something got lost in communication.
> 
> Because what I read was "Explain to me what 2e brings to the table without using the the phrase '2e is better than 1e because...'".




You also read 







> By that standard, no edition beyond 1974 should be getting a clone, since they are all "imitations of the original" (as Dialgo puts it).



 You have a great talent for reading words that are not there!


----------



## Bumbles (May 25, 2009)

As I see it, the argument is consuming far more time than it's worth, so here's my answer:

Play however you like, I'm not obligated to play with you, nor are you obligated to play in my games.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> You also read  You have a great talent for reading words that are not there!




Right, so I was talking about old-school and why nothing produced after 1985 is considered it...


----------



## Oni (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Nah. You'll never see anyone here at Enworld knocking any aspect of old-school play. And you'll never see anyone anywhere holding up AD&D in particular as a model of bad design, or World of Darkness as the light that led RPGs out of the dark age. Nope, there's no hint of superiority at all in the drumbeat of dismissal.
> 
> Or rather, the prejudices go down easy if one happens to share them. Maybe even easier when sugar coated with the sorts of false claims that might wear thin if reason were admissible. Instead, it must be dismissed with Bulverism. Any positive statement concerning an "old school" design is nothing but silly "nostalgia", and therefore wrong.
> 
> When the shoe is on the foot of someone kicking it, the minority can be identified. Yet it is somehow improper for the minority to claim its _own_ identity.




Gee and you'll never see other people expressing opinions to the contrary here.  So some people don't like what you like and have expressed it.  People do that all the time.  But trying to paint yourself as an embattled minority over something so trivial as your choice of games is passing silly and smacks of an attempt set yourself above the unintelligent rabble.



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> So, does that make 4E even more "old school" than 0E?
> 
> Old-school players tend express "giving the DM narrative control" with the pithy term "railroad"; it has in most cases a negative connotation. There is also a pretty objective (but not exclusive) denotation that can become pretty clear if one makes a flow-chart of a scenario. What is often called today a "sandbox" cannot be reduced much more toward that than the map itself.
> 
> From an old-school perspective, "mechanical control of the game" in modern designs tends to reside (by cession) mainly in their voluminous rules-books -- not in the DM or players. The experience of reclaiming control when returning to older modes is often remarked upon.




But to turn around and attack on the sly, in the very manner you were complaining about previously.  All I see is more us versus them attitude.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

Is it "us" or "them" so threatened by the suggestion that it is not "just a feeling" ("nostalgia" or otherwise) that differentiates one thing from another in some minds?


----------



## jdrakeh (May 25, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> Ironically, I think the need to categorize and have strict definitions is a "new school" RPG phenomenon that many old school players dislike.




I think so, too. I never heard any of the old wargamers that introduced me to AD&D 1e and BD&D talk about generations of games, named play styles, etc. That's all stuff that I didn't start hearing about until the late 1990s.


----------



## Mercurius (May 25, 2009)

Interesting thread. Defining "old school" seems to be one of the hottest topics du jour in the murky backwaters of RPG fandom called internet forums and blogs. 

I tend to agree with Joe on this one, because James Maliszewski seems to be making a claming act for the term "old school," in a divisive manner not unlike a marginalized minority that by trying to defend its territory actually creates more antagonism and "us-vs-themism" than was previously the case (Ariosto's posts are a case in point). In some ways it seems like a later variant, an echoing ripple if you will, of the nerds who got picked on in junior high back in the 80s fighting back. Maybe it is time to move on and realize that we're all nerds here in the RPG Funhouse .

Some random comments:



Glyfair said:


> Ironically, I think the need to categorize and have strict definitions is a "new school" RPG phenomenon that many old school players dislike.




Bingo. This is almost a coup de grace to JM's argument. That, in addition to the fact that the term "old school" is used by different people in different ways, whereas JM seems to want to trademark it to HIS way, or at least a manner codified by the editors of _Fight On!_ or some secret cabal of old schoolers. I mean, why not just drop the term and say "OD&D" if that is what old school, in his/their mind, is limited to?



catsclaw227 said:


> I like playing 4e, yet I inject some old school style in it by having some plot-light regions, some site based adventures, as well as some dungeons with not-so-realistic ecologies.
> 
> I also play up the idea that the rules for PCs are different than the rules for NPCs, Monsters and their environs.  Not that the world "physics" are different for PCs, but that there are options for NPCs and Monsters that don't exist for PCs.  i.e. if I want a monster to have some cool ability or something, then they can have it.  I don't need a book of stats to play it out.  Also, for me, old school style presumes a fair amount of "winging it" and DM Fiat.
> 
> ...




I quoted your post in full, Catsclaw, because you basically summed up my current approach to playing: contemporary ruleset, old school stylistics. It seems to me that the way we play has a lot to do with when we first played, the context we grew up in. Notice how a lot of 30+ year olds settle into a hair and clothing style that was crystallized sometime in their late teens or early 20s? I'm sure everyone knows that 39-year old woman who still wears her hair in a 1989-style bob, right? There is something about self image crystallizing; "stagnating" would be pejorative, and I don't mean it that way (necessarily). But in terms of gaming sensibilities, we're looking at generational splits. Most people in theirs 30s and 40s started gaming in the 70s or 80s, before the days of World of Warcraft and their ilk. The sensibility is of imagination first, virtuality second. The approach is more open-ended, free-form, _old school..._

So yeah, to me the term mainly (but not only) refers to _how_ one plays the game, not _what_ game one plays. This is not to say that 4ed played with old school sensibilities is the same thing as playing OD&D; it isn't. But one could play 4ed in a free-form fashion, just as one can play OD&D in a rigid way. One doesn't have to play a Fender Rhodes to play 70s funk, just as one can play non-funk on a Fender Rhodes.



Ariosto said:


> That part indeed was poorly put, conflating the claim to play "in an old school style" (early in the sentence) with "playing an old school game" at the end.
> 
> However, it is just such conflation that figures in the rhetoric of dismissal. It's a cherry picking of things, with the assertion that other things therefore do not matter. At its most egregious, it is the claim that there's no difference in the games because to some degree one chooses to _ignore_ the difference.
> 
> ...




Only because you're making it the point. The point to others might be, what is the feel of a game or a style of gaming? Again, what is the definition of old school? And whose definition should we follow? And who should make that choice?

Take the term "jazz," for instance. What is jazz? What is not jazz? Where is the line? And who gets to decide? Are we talking about the structure of the music, instruments played, the degree of improvisation, the feeling, what? There isn't an easy answer, is there? 



Remathilis said:


> Personally, I have to put my money with the Green Dragon blog: the old-school Renaissance ALREADY is excluding certain elements of the D&D back-catalog and focusing on others.....
> 
> Currently, the "old school" Renaissance mostly consists of people who gamed during the late 70's and early 80's trying to recapture the games of that era. The mood, tone, style, and even artwork and typesetting evokes the feeling of those pre-1984 gaming, and lets everything else go hang. It comes off sounding like the "rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia" because it ignores (willfully or otherwise) any and all innovations for the past 15 years.....
> 
> Now, if you enjoy that sort of game, more power to you. I reject the notion that OD&D, 1e, or a derived retro-clone is any more "pure" than 2e, Pathfinder, or 4e.




Good points. What is "real" D&D, anyways? Who gets to decide? We do, right? Maybe D&D is not a codified dogma of this or that, but a theme, a tradition, a flowing movement of becoming. Maybe OD&D is D&D; maybe BECMI is D&D; maybe 4ed is D&D; maybe D&D is still to come, in another form...

I would say that D&D is all of the above and more. It is an *archetype*, a _l__iving tradition_, not a single crystallized form. 



Ariosto said:


> Nah. You'll never see anyone here at Enworld knocking any aspect of old-school play. And you'll never see anyone anywhere holding up AD&D in particular as a model of bad design, or World of Darkness as the light that led RPGs out of the dark age. Nope, there's no hint of superiority at all in the drumbeat of dismissal.
> 
> Or rather, the prejudices go down easy if one happens to share them. Maybe even easier when sugar coated with the sorts of false claims that might wear thin if reason were admissible. Instead, it must be dismissed with Bulverism. Any positive statement concerning an "old school" design is nothing but silly "nostalgia", and therefore wrong.
> 
> When the shoe is on the foot of someone kicking it, the minority can be identified. Yet it is somehow improper for the minority to claim its _own_ identity.




Ariosto, this seems like self-marginalization to me. Psychologically speaking, why do self-proclaimed Old Schoolers feel the need to ghettoize themselves? Again, as I said above, it reminds me of 80s nerds circling the wagons against the big bad mean jocks and preps. Now it is the 70s/80s nerds circling the wagons against anti-OD&D purists...in other words, _other_ nerds. 



mearls said:


> D&D is such a subjective, personal thing that trying to push everyone's experience with it into a single box is a waste of time.




Maybe nothing else needed to be said? 



mearls said:


> To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.
> 
> The specific mechanics behind the game and its setting are irrelevant. A simpler game does make sense, since the DM can pretty much do whatever he wants, but it is by no means a necessity.
> 
> ...




Good points, and I think the danger you point to is already happening. 

Maybe we need to try to please both general camps, and offer "loose" and "tight" definitions of what Old School means? Mearls, Catsclaw, myself and others buy the loose definition; Maliszewski, Ariosto and others buy the tight one.

Everyone happy? 



Ariosto said:


> Old-school players tend to express "giving the DM narrative control" with the pithy term "railroad"; it has in most cases a negative connotation. There is also a pretty objective (but not exclusive) denotation that can become pretty clear if one makes a flow-chart of a scenario. What is often called today a "sandbox" cannot be reduced much more toward that than the map itself.
> 
> From an old-school perspective, "mechanical control of the game" in modern designs tends to reside (by cession) mainly in their voluminous rules-books -- not in the DM or players. The experience of _reclaiming_ control when returning to older modes is often remarked upon.




You seem to be a big fan of exactitude, so notice that Mearls did not say "giving the DM narrative control" but "the players cede* much of* the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM."

It is a subtle, but important, _difference_, no?



Ariosto said:


> Is it "us" or "them" so threatened by the suggestion that it is not "just a feeling" ("nostalgia" or otherwise) that differentiates one thing from another in some minds?




But that differentiation is at least influenced, if not based upon, the subjective feeling content of "those minds" making the differentiation. In other words, when James Maliszewski says "it is more than just a feeling" he is speaking from his own subjective/feeling basis. Of course this sets up an absurd infinite regression of "that's just your opinion" and "but _that's_ just _your_ opinion!" 'Ware the performative contradiction, I say (e.g. "everything is relative," which is an absolute statement). To put it another way, we must both recognize that there is "always" a subjective, feeling aspect to any view we have, but that we can also look towards building greater, inter-subjective validities by looking for worldviews that include as much as possible. I prefer to proceed in a Hegelian dialectical sense.

To me this is a discussion, an exploration, an inquiry. Where we run into trouble--and arguments--is when we start trying to lay claim to things, define them in a way that some feel is exclusionary. This thread was started because, essentially, James Maliszewski's definition of old school was exclusionary, and he was basically saying some folks' view on this is "badwrongdefinition." 

My view is that this conversation can be more fruitful if we look at it as just that: a conversation, an inquiry--not towards some Final Definition That Explains Everything, but a deepening and a continuation. As I said, I see D&D not as a static ruleset of a specific era that caters to a set of personally and culturally bound proclivities, but a living tradition, an archetype of imaginative play that will continue to spew out manifestations for as long as we choose to proverbially, if not literally, roll the dice.


----------



## Hairfoot (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Is it "us" or "them" so threatened by the suggestion that it is not "just a feeling" ("nostalgia" or otherwise) that differentiates one thing from another in some minds?



That's the crux of it.

There's a lot of high-strung defensiveness toward the suggestion that, for some, the superhero boardgame format of 4E may not be as much fun as the more demanding and human-scaled classic play-style.  Any spirit of "live and let live" has been steamrolled by the popular demand to accept 4E as the finest game ever produced, and put the brilliance of its creation on par with the discovery of antibiotics.

I played a 4E campaign and DMed another.  I enjoyed it, but found it was thematically shallow, a bit tacky, and apparently geared more toward providing immortal Mary Sues for teenagers than challenging the ingenuity and cunning of the players.  That's a perfectly legitimate design/marketing approach, but not the game I want to play.

There are probably many game systems that can provide a challenge for experienced players, but D&D is the one I'm most familiar with, so I gravitate toward clones of old editions for the style of game I want to play.  You can call that nostalgia, but you'd be wrong.

A decade from now, many of today's 4E boosters will be looking for more flexible games which they can relate to as adults.  Not all will go for an old D&D or clone, but they'll realise then why so many didn't hop on the 4E train all those years ago.

And thanks for the heads-up on Bulverism, Ariosto.  That link could have saved thousands of pages of edition wars argument!


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

> What is "real" D&D, anyways? Who gets to decide?



Legally, Hasbro. Mr. Mearls (for instance) has contributed ably to that privileged definition. Why begrudge "old school" players the freedom to speak for themselves as to their little subset of the hobby? Or is there some term other than "old school" they may be permitted to use?


----------



## jdrakeh (May 25, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> That link could have saved thousands of pages of edition wars argument!




Who needs thousands of pages? You managed to be thoroughly insulting, derrogatory, and nasty in one post.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

> James Maliszewski's definition of old school was exclusionary, and he was basically saying some folks' view on this is "badwrongdefinition."



Where in the column in question do you find J.M.'s definition -- and what is it?

What I read was a response  to dismissals of "old school" games via ad hominem argument. From all I have read of his work, I think he is quite open to critical analysis of the games themselves. It is the very ducking of that by those who choose instead to toss epithets at the players to which he apparently objects.

His proposal (as I read it) that people should not be cowed by such name-calling, but should instead insist that approaches to game design should be addressed on their own merits, seems to me eminently reasonable.

Was it detractors who first applied the "old school" label to those claiming it now? I do not know, but I have encountered often and long enough the derogatory usage to suspect that if its origin was not prior then it was at least roughly contemporaneous. Perhaps there has been "seller's" regret in the wake of the success of such value-laden slogans as "back to the dungeon" and "first edition feel" and the Goodman Games boilerplate?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 25, 2009)

I agree with Joe's point that in rpg discussion too many people attribute intellectual, moral or some other form of superiority to matters of taste. What rpg or style one prefers is much more subjective than objective, though I wouldn't say it's 100% subjective otherwise we could never say that FATAL is a bad game.

However I don't agree that 'old school' is meaningless. It might be hard to define precisely but there are certain traits and styles that look a lot more old school than others. Are we really unable to say that Tunnels & Trolls is a more old school system than My Life With Master? Or that a game where the players do lots of acting, put on voices and write novels from the PCs point-of-view is less old school than one where the PCs don't have personalities distinct from the players and have no goals other than the accumulation of wealth, magic and level-ups?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Legally, Hasbro. Mr. Mearls (for instance) has contributed ably to that privileged definition. Why begrudge "old school" players the freedom to speak for themselves as to their little subset of the hobby? Or is there some term other than "old school" they may be permitted to use?



Jeez, you're in a bad mood today.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> "back to the dungeon"



Early noughties = old school.


----------



## Mercurius (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Legally, Hasbro. Mr. Mearls (for instance) has contributed ably to that privileged definition. Why begrudge "old school" players the freedom to speak for themselves as to their little subset of the hobby? Or is there some term other than "old school" they may be permitted to use?




I do not begrudge "old school" players anything; what I begrudge is limiting, or trying to "own", the term itself. As I said in my (overly) long post, if old school simply equals OD&D, why not just call it OD&D? Then there would be less room for the looseness of definition that JM seems to dislike.

If anything I see JM begrudging "loose old schoolers" from using the term in ways that he disapproves of, thus the piece in question.



Ariosto said:


> Where in the column in question do you find J.M.'s definition -- and what is it?




I'm not talking about his definition but his (attempted) deconstruction of other definitions, namely old school as a feeling or quality of play.



Ariosto said:


> What I read was a response  to dismissals of "old school" games via ad hominem argument. From all I have read of his work, I think he is quite open to critical analysis of the games themselves. It is the very ducking of that by those who choose instead to toss epithets at the players to which he apparently objects.




Yeah, no slight intended to JM whom I've interacted with a few times on his old Live Journal blog and found to be quite pleasant and intelligent. But I simply don't see this witch hunt that you seem to imply against old schoolers, which is why I spoke of "self marginalization." 



Ariosto said:


> His proposal (as I read it) that people should not be cowed by such name-calling, but should instead insist that approaches to game design should be addressed on their own merits, seems to me eminently reasonable.




Certainly! But again, where's the name calling? I'm sure it exists, but to the extent that you imply?



Ariosto said:


> Was it detractors who first applied the "old school" label to those claiming it now? I do not know, but I have encountered often and long enough the derogatory usage to suspect that if its origin was not prior then it was at least roughly contemporaneous. Perhaps there has been "seller's" regret in the wake of the success of such value-laden slogans as "back to the dungeon" and "first edition feel" and the Goodman Games boilerplate?




The term "Old School Renaissance" was almost certainly coined by one of its adherents. But I haven't seen a lot of derogatory usage of "old school"; if anything it is a badge of honor, of legitimacy.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

> Are we really unable to say that Tunnels & Trolls is a more old school system than My Life With Master?



 The distinction seems quite evident to me -- and quite irrelevant to (as I see it) the imponderable question of which is "better".


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

mearls said:


> To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.




This is also what I think of when I think of oldschool D&D.  Much of the game, in my experience, boiled down to convincing your dm to let you do things.  This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how closely your opinion on what you should be able to do matched your dm's opinion on what you should be able to do.  For various reasons(everything from differing logic, to superior knowledge on the player or dm side, to percieved coolness), I found it to be a pretty bad thing overall.  No doubt the players still playing in an old school fashion have had better experiences with it, and thus consider it to be a good thing.  As noted, it's highly subjective.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

> If old school simply equals OD&D, why not just call it OD&D?



That is quite sensible. And the sensible answer is that it is not a simple equation with OD&D (which in my experience but lately -- and perhaps but temporarily -- attained some visibility after 30 years or so of utter obscurity). It is not even limited to D&D, although the parochialism of that subcultural "gorilla" rears its head from time to time -- which is really "the same as it ever was".


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> This is also what I think of when I think of oldschool D&D.  Much of the game, in my experience, boiled down to convincing your dm to let you do things.





That's not the game, that's the DM.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 25, 2009)

There are a couple of things I find interesting about his post:

1. That he's arguing for an objective definition of "old school." Prior to this, I only heard the phrase used for a wide variety of nostalgia. Like when people say they watched some old school Transformers or old school Star Wars. That someone would want to argue that old school gaming isn't nostalgia seems at odds with the way old school is used in other contexts. 

2. The last thing James Maliszewski says is "Otherwise, we really are just a bunch of middle-aged guys clinging to the past." There is nothing wrong with being a middle-aged guy clinging to the past. If you like a game, you like a game. If you like a group of games, you like a group of games. Stand-up and be counted. It's ok to just like something, there's no need to go off and try to make it sound all scientific.

One day, in the not to distant future, I'm going to be a middle-aged guy clinging to the past. I will wear my preferences proud.


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> That's not the game, that's the DM.





How do you figure that?  The game explicitly told you to consult the DM when the rules don't cover something.  Given the "rules light"(compared to modern D&D) nature of earlier versions of D&D, you were going to be consulting the DM alot, which basically amounts to asking him for permission to do anything not covered by the rules.

Some said yes alot.  Some said no alot.  Some knew more about how the action in question works in real life than the players did.  Some thought they knew more than the players did, and in reality, didn't.  Some left it up to the dice.  Some based it on what would be better for the story.  Some viewed the players as the enemy.  Some were carebears.  Some played favorites.  Some would make one ruling one week, then promptly forget about it the next time a similar situation came up.  Some were extremely consistent with their rulings.  Some decided based on how cool the action in question was.  Some decided immediately.  Some debated every action.

Some of the dms descirbed above were good, others were bad.  That doesn't change the fact that the way the game operated was that if it wasn't covered by the rules, the DM decides whether you can do it or not.  It was the way the game worked, and is the way the game still works(though with the large amount of mechanics added over the years, you have to play "ask the DM" alot less than you used to).

Some players would rather have a person telling them what they can and can't do.  Others would rather have rules telling them what they can and can't do.  This is one of the primary divides between newschool and oldschool D&D.


----------



## Hairfoot (May 25, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Prior to this, I only heard the phrase used for a wide variety of nostalgia. Like when people say they watched some old school Transformers or old school Star Wars.



Which suggests that it was introduced as a term of derision.  I prefer "classic".

Comparison with old cartoons isn't very apt, because a lot of them were objectively bad.  The old/new school debate in D&D is more akin to glam rockers and folkies arguing the merits of electric/acoustic guitars.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

> Why do self-proclaimed Old Schoolers feel the need to ghettoize themselves?



It seems to me rather that their _coming out_ of the ghetto has occasioned this contretemps. It's not as if they had been playing with everyone else for the past 20 years and suddenly retreated into some seclusion!

Their "renaissance" seems characterized by works of _reaching out_ such as the "retro clones" facilitated by the OGL; participation in the RPGs at libraries events; a "paint and play" program (in partnership with Reaper Miniatures) in at least one Hobbytown USA; publication of modules and magazines; contests with prizes for artists and scenario designers (with, if memory serves, some special reservation for 4E-derived entries in the recent "edition independent" One Page Dungeon lists); and so on.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:
			
		

> That doesn't change the fact that the way the game operated was that if it wasn't covered by the rules, the DM decides whether you can do it or not.




That's how pretty much _all_ roleplaying games with a GM/DM work, new and old alike, from OD&D (1974) to D&D 4e. Any claim that _only_ older games afford the GM/DM authority to implement judgement is a claim quickly disproven by reading pretty much any _traditional_ RPG published within the last year or so (Story Games and other self-proclaimed departures from the norm obviously don't qualify as traditional).


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> That's how pretty much _all_ roleplaying games with a GM/DM work, new and old alike, from OD&D (1974) to D&D 4e. Any claim that _only_ older games afford the GM/DM authority to implement judgement is a claim quickly disproven by reading pretty much any _traditional_ RPG published within the last year or so (Story Games and other self-proclaimed departures from the norm obviously don't qualify as traditional).




Yes, that's accurate, as I mentioned.  However, the presence of more rules allows the players to do more things without having to convince the DM to let them do it.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

> The old/new school debate in D&D is more akin to glam rockers and folkies arguing the merits of electric/acoustic guitars.



*Electric Warrior*, baby -- but Steve Peregrine Took not only beat the bongos better than Mickey Finn, he was way better at backing Marc's vocals with his own; and I think he contributed some of the trippier lyrics. (Opinion, YMMV, etc.)


----------



## Hairfoot (May 25, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Any claim that _only_ older games afford the GM/DM authority to implement judgement is a claim quickly disproven by reading pretty much any _traditional_ RPG published within the last year or so.



Or reading the ever-present threads on any RPG discussion board concerning GM unfairness and bias.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 25, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> Which suggests that it was introduced as a term of derision.



Maybe it was. Often, I hear it used by people engaging in the old school activity, i.e. "I was watching old school Godzilla yesterday and Mothera rocks!" So, I don't attribute the phrase any pejorative meaning. That doesn't others don't, however.



Hairfoot said:


> I prefer "classic".



Which is also a classier word. 



Hairfoot said:


> Comparison with old cartoons isn't very apt, because a lot of them were objectively bad.  The old/new school debate in D&D is more akin to glam rockers and folkies arguing the merits of electric/acoustic guitars.



I prefer vi versus emacs analogy myself.


----------



## Obryn (May 25, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> Or reading the ever-present threads on any RPG discussion board concerning GM unfairness and bias.



So you're arguing that messageboard posts from one player are a true and honest reflection of the games played by all players?  Rather than a reflection of themselves and their group's dynamics?

It's an interesting hypothesis, but I'm going to need the underlying logic here.

-O


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> Or reading the ever-present threads on any RPG discussion board concerning GM unfairness and bias.




There's more to it than unfairness and bias.  Some people just find themselves in games where they and the DM don't agree on what they should be capable of.  That doesn't neccessarily mean the DM is bad(or that the player is bad).  They just have different expectations.  Rules can help to solve this problem.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> Yes, that's accurate, as I mentioned.  However, the presence of more rules allows the players to do more things without having to convince the DM to let them do it.



That depends upon the tenor of the rules and the participants' relationship with them (and with each other).


----------



## Hairfoot (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> *Electric Warrior*, baby -- but Steve Peregrine Took not only beat the bongos better than Mickey Finn, he was way better at backing Marc's vocals with his own; and I think he contributed some of the trippier lyrics. (Opinion, YMMV, etc.)



How many bluegrassians does it take to change a lightbulb?

10: one to change the bulb, three to sing about the old one, and six to walk out in disgust because it's electric.

[/off-topic]


----------



## jdrakeh (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> Yes, that's accurate, as I mentioned.  However, the presence of more rules allows the players to do more things without having to convince the DM to let them do it.




I think that's largely an illusion that has been fostered by modern game design. IME, at the end of the day, if you want your character to do X, the GM/DM still has the final say on whether or not X is appropriate and, therefore, if your character can attempt it. 

That is, volume of rules doesn't speak to the nature of individual action or, if you prefer, just because a game contains rules for X doesn't mean that X will happen during actual play.


----------



## Hairfoot (May 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So you're arguing that messageboard posts from one player are a true and honest reflection of the games played by all players?  Rather than a reflection of themselves and their group's dynamics?
> 
> It's an interesting hypothesis, but I'm going to need the underlying logic here.
> 
> -O



Nope.  You invented that argument without any help from me, so you'll have to provide your own underlying logic.

I pointed out that players still complain about GM fiat and unfairness, despite the abundance of rules.

And where did you get "one player" from?  Are you suggesting that all complaints about GMs are posted by the one guy, all over the internet, every day, for years?  If so, that must be the most successful troll in history!


----------



## Hairfoot (May 25, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I think that's largely an illusion that has been fostered by modern game design. IME, at the end of the day, if you want your character to do X, the GM/DM still has the final say on whether or not X is appropriate and, therefore, if your character can attempt it.



I agree.  I've played in many groups as an adult, and I've never seen a player need to produce a rule to convince the GM to at least let the PC _attempt _something.

That sort of "no, you just can't" attitude is something I associate with the personality politics of high-school, reinforcing the theory that retro-gaming is gaining popularity because official Dungeons & Dragons is now designed solely for adolescents.


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> IME, at the end of the day, if you want your character to do X, the GM/DM still has the final say on whether or not X is appropriate and, therefore, if your character can attempt it.




On some level, yes.  However, when a rule says you can do something, in my experience the DM won't prevent it, unless there's something specifically preventing it in the current situation.  If a DM is constantly ignoring/modifying rules in order to limit player options(referring to game play options rather than character building options), that's generally my cue to leave.

Note that I'm not trying to say the old school "here's a few rules, ask the dm for everything else" style is neccessarily bad.  In fact, if the group can reconcile their individual views how they believe the game should be played, that style of game can wind up being superior.  Aside from 4e, B/X or BECMI would be my favorite version of D&D, and I'd gladly be playing them if I had a DM that I meshed particularly well with.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

Survey sez: 20 (including the purtier troupe to reprise it at the Grand Ole Opry and on Hee Haw).

In my (statistically unrepresentative) experience as a 4E player, I have found it more like pulling teeth to get the (RPGA) DM to allow actions than ever in all my toiling in the field of fantasy gaming.

As a DM in the same context, I found the comprehensive rules liberating in a "gloves off" way. My performance really fell short only in lacking mastery enough to play the "adversarial" role as competently as the scenario demanded for best effect.

In TSR-D&D, I have seen more in the way of conferences in which players and DM come to a consensus as to what makes sense. In 4E, it's been more a matter of looking up (and arguing interpretations of) text in a book.

Again, that's just one person's unrepresentative experience.


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> I agree.  I've played in many groups as an adult, and I've never seen a player need to produce a rule to convince the GM to at least let the PC _attempt _something.
> 
> That sort of "no, you just can't" attitude is something I associate with the personality politics of high-school, reinforcing the theory that retro-gaming is gaining popularity because official Dungeons & Dragons is now designed solely for adolescents.




There are other ways to say "no" than "you just can't".  There's "sure, here's the astronomical penalty to your roll".  Or "sure, roll a d20 and I'll tell you if you succeed or not".  If you've really never seen a situation where a player and a DM disagreed about what's possible in the real world, or what should be possible in a fantasy world, or how easy/difficult it should be, you've been pretty lucky in getting DMs that mesh well with you.

Myself, I've been stuck trying to play Conan in Middle Earth for much of my D&D life, heh.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

My (very, VERY personal) analogies:
"Old school" D&D is sort of like the Hospitality Room at TellusCon.
3E was sort of like ... Advanced Squad Leader Semifinals?
4E is sort of like Contract Bridge Night.

No better or worse, but definitely _different_. Sometimes I feel like a nut, and sometimes I feel like a coconut.


----------



## Hairfoot (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> There are other ways to say "no" than "you just can't".  There's "sure, here's the astronomical penalty to your roll".  Or "sure, roll a d20 and I'll tell you if you succeed or not".




Debating "what's possible in the real world, or what should be possible in a fantasy world, or how easy/difficult it should be" happens regardless of the system or rules used.  Unless a game lists, categorically, everything a PC is capable of, there will always be GM adjudication, and in a fantasy game of heroism, characters will attempt heroic actions.

The only reason a GM would make things unnecessarily difficult is personal prejudice, and no amount of rules will alter that.  Rule  zero cannot be "the DM shall not be a prick", even if it's sometimes warranted.


----------



## Windjammer (May 25, 2009)

@Ariosto

I'm grateful for your presence on this thread - indeed on EnWorld as such, which apart from a ridiculously small number of lucid posters has become a complete waste of time.

It's worth pointing out that entering a thread just to insult people is a pretty good way to get booted from the thread. Discussion and discourse are great; cheap shots aren't. ~ PCat

That said, you misunderstood Mearls when you equated the following to "railroding":



mearls said:


> To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.




What Mearls meant is that in some older edition games players didn't even know their own to-hit numbers and didn't even record their hit points (a suggestion that's even in the 1E DMG). So what you get is the players only interfacing with the game world directly, and the DM translating that into game mechanical terms for them. This, by itself, constitutes a greater _narrative_ control by the DM as well - it's in the details, and not in the grander "story arc" (as is the case with railroading).

On the other side of the spectrum is the codification of combat maneuvers in 3E and 4E. If a player says "I bullrush that orc", he already knows how to put mechanics onto that.

So basically the fewer mechanics players track in a game beyond the absolutely vital for their PCs to function (6 core abilities, to-hit score, hp, saves vs. attacks other than hp-depletion) the closer that game will be to OD&D. In that vein, have a look at what Mearls suggests for 4E  here.



mearls said:


> D&D is such a subjective, personal thing that trying to push everyone's experience with it into a single box is a waste of time.
> ... The specific mechanics behind the game and its setting are irrelevant.




Agreed. I take a good DM using a wacky ruleset (say, _Earthdawn _1E) any day over a mediocre DM using the best ruleset (say [insert favourite edition of D&D here everyone]). But the style and skills of either DM would be enhanced - or hampered - by which game he is playing. 



mearls said:


> I think there are a lot of parallels between the old school movement and the indie movement. Both started around what I see as fairly simple concepts. The indie movement eventually gathered a lot of baggage that hampered its growth, a sort of "us vs. them" vibe that turned away people. It'd be a pity to see the same thing happen again.




Ok. That's just wishful thinking on your part. Dragonsfoot will outlive 4E and you know that. People there will put out good, free modules and contribute enlightening discussion when you've long ago turned your back on the P&P industry and joint the world of digital gaming. I don't mean that as a derogatory remark at all. Arneson did it, Jaquays did it - you'll be in good company. But wishful thinking along the ride ill behoves Lareth - just get to the job. 


			
				T1 said:
			
		

> Those who arouse suspicion will be quietly murdered in their sleep; those with too much promise will be likewise dealt with, for Mearls wants no potential usurpers or threats to his domination.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> On some level, yes.  However, when a rule says you can do something, in my experience the DM won't prevent it, unless there's something specifically preventing it in the current situation.




I agree that it's definitely the exception, not the. . . er. . . rule. I just meant to point out that it's not _always_ ths way. In my own experience, I had this issue crop up more often in D&D 3e than in other editions of the game, with players even going so far as to quote all of the _sample_ skill DCs in the PHB as immutable figures. I hated that. It happened so often that when I was DMing 3e, I just quit fighting it, as that ended up being wasted effort on my part.


----------



## Piratecat (May 25, 2009)

I've just threadbanned several people, in the hopes that this can remain a discussion instead of an edition war. Plan accordingly.


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> How do you figure that?





Because the verb you use "convince" (and the rest of your post) shows that there was an adversarial relationship between your group and your DM, where you had to often debate whether or not PC actions were viable or allowed.  A DM who was a better communicator and facilitator would have had a relationship with the players that had fewer in-game boundaries and required much less or none of that sort of boundary testing.  The game-flow was stilted because of that relationship and it hindered the experience.  This can be accomplished in any edition and was something my mid-Seventies groups on through my current groups enjoy.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 25, 2009)

Old school gaming for me is, when players come up with creative ideas, like as mentioned, using an iron spike to disable a trap, and a DM who allows it if it makes sense...

old school is usually challenges the player, not his character... its not a bad thing, but it makes playing believable characters challenging... very challenging sometimes...

As said: you don´t actually need rules for old school gaming... because you can solve every problems by playing out the character...

But what you need is a great, fair DM and players willing to accept the ruling... and some players and some DMs don´t like it.

IMHO the best RPG is a good mix of old and new school: the 3.5 DM´s best friend: reward clever ideas by modifying the rolls by an approriate amount... and using take 10/20 as much as possible...


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> Because the verb you use "convince" (and the rest of your post) shows that there was an adversarial relationship between your group and your DM, where you had to often debate whether or not PC actions were viable or allowed.




With some DMs, this has been true.  Other DMs not so much.  Even with a DM that usually says "yes" though, the process is still there.  Some players are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to ask permission from somebody to do things(even if he usually says yes).  Others are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to consult the rules to determine whether they can do things(even if the rules usually say yes).


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 25, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> superhero boardgame format of 4E may not be as much fun as the more demanding and human-scaled classic play-style.



And yet what could be more old school than Chainmail? Wargames and boardgames are pretty similar so if one does accept that 4e is a boardgame (I don't, or rather that's not *all* it is) then 4e is, in a sense, old school. Its gamism-promoting system also makes it more old school than anything we've seen since 1e. The focus on location based adventures of both d20 editions are more old school than 2e.

You say that 4e is marketed at teenagers. Well OD&D was a product of the young. It was played by the young. Gary initially ran the game for his children. Dave Arneson wasn't long out of his teens when he began work on D&D. Rob Kuntz, co-DM of Gary's first Greyhawk campaign, was born in 1955, he'd have been a teenager when OD&D was published. Holmes 1977 D&D was specifically revised to make it more accessible to children and was aimed at ages 12 and up.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I think that's largely an illusion that has been fostered by modern game design. IME, at the end of the day, if you want your character to do X, the GM/DM still has the final say on whether or not X is appropriate and, therefore, if your character can attempt it.
> 
> That is, volume of rules doesn't speak to the nature of individual action or, if you prefer, just because a game contains rules for X doesn't mean that X will happen during actual play.




Agreed. 

DMs, being a fickle bunch (I should know, I'm one) can still poo-poo actions even in the presence/absence of rules for it. 

No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU. He might call for a dex check, a series of skill checks, he might just let you do it, or he might flat out say no (or worse, allow you to "try" but make the attempt automatically fail). Still, the DM provides the narrative footwork & mechanical frame for it to happen; is there a chandelier, can the PC reach it, will it hold his weight, what roll does he need (if any) to accomplish the task, what game-related benefit does it provide (if swinging over a group of enemies provokes AoO's from them, why waste the dice rolls to swing when you've just walked and got the same effect?)

What the codification of rules was supposed to do was give indecisive DMs a framework to base judgments off of (Can I swing? Well, I don't know, how bout a tumble check?) What it does for some it create an artificial limit (No, there is no rule for that, you cannot). Still, the presence/absence of the rule should not be the deciding factor as to what is possible, but merely a jumping off point. Its a fine distinction some "rules-light" people expose; A rules-heavy game has no place for improvisation.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> old school is usually challenges the player, not his character... its not a bad thing, but it makes playing believable characters challenging... very challenging sometimes...




Agreed. It can lead to the "My PC has a 18 charisma, why doesn't that count when I'm trying to convince the barkeep to let us in the hidden backroom?" scenario.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 25, 2009)

I was having a look at the Fight On! site, "A Fanzine for the Old-School Renaissance", and I saw something in the first paragraph that I would say is the opposite of old school.

Out of 5 PCs in the adventuring party mentioned, 2 are female, the swanmay and the witch. Not old school. In the very early days of D&D, all the players (and their PCs) were male.

It was Fighting Man, not Fighting Person.


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU.




It's about more than complex environmental interaction.  Pre 3e, I don't think I could even try to push a foe without DM fiat.

It's not really about having rules for everything(though having a good, consistent system that can easily cover many situations is awfully nice).  It's about having a fair amount of options codified by the rules, so you aren't playing ask the DM constantly when you get bored of "I roll my d20 to hit, then I roll my d8 for damage".


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> With some DMs, this has been true.  Other DMs not so much.  Even with a DM that usually says "yes" though, the process is still there.





Only in so far as the DM is the default eyes and ears of the players into the setting, the facilitator.




outsider said:


> Some players are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to ask permission from somebody to do things(even if he usually says yes).  Others are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to consult the rules to determine whether they can do things(even if the rules usually say yes).





Again, that's not the system.  That's a relationship between DM and players that requires adjustment.  Unless the setting is merely a veneer and the rules are such that the players do not even need a DM to adjudicate, but that's no longer an RPG with a DM/player dynamic and not what I am discussing.  That's more akin to a CRPG or a boardgame where no DM/facilitator/adjudicator is necessary.


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> Again, that's not the system.  That's a relationship between DM and players that requires adjustment.




It is, in fact, the system, and I'm having a realy hard time seeing why you feel differently.  The relationship between the DM and the players will make the system work better or worse, of course.  It doesn't change what the system actually is though.  Old D&D's system was that nearly everything was decided by DM fiat.  It's possible to dislike so much power being in the hands of one player even if he always does exactly what you want him to.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I was having a look at the Fight On! site, "A Fanzine for the Old-School Renaissance", and I saw something in the first paragraph that I would say is the opposite of old school.
> 
> Out of 5 PCs in the adventuring party mentioned, 2 are female, the swanmay and the witch. Not old school. In the very early days of D&D, all the players (and their PCs) were male.
> 
> It was Fighting Man, not Fighting Person.




Paging Shilsen in 5... 4... 3...

EDIT: Actually, that is very old school. AFAIK, neither class was a PC class choice, both were NPC classes (or "monsters"). Both are unarmored, lightly armed spellcaster types that follow and aid their male "adventurers" with magic and knowledge, akin to a wide collection of mythical magicians such as Circe or Medea. 

A female PC in full plate carrying a greatsword, on the other hand...


----------



## amethal (May 25, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU.



Iron Heroes does. (A d20 system game.)



			
				Mastering Iron Heroes said:
			
		

> Chandelier Swing (Reusable Action Zone): You leap through the
> air, grab hold of the chandelier, and use it to swing across the
> room. You must make a Jump check as normal to reach the
> chandelier. You then use it to swing across the room as a free
> ...




NB As far as I can tell, the above is not open content.


----------



## naturaltwenty (May 25, 2009)

I'll try to quantify my views but I'm not a debater or an eloquent speaker (writer).

Games with rules for everything and that strive for "balance" are more difficult for me to run.  

If player's are expected to define their characters within a specific rules-set during creation and play I, as a Game Master, have a sense of guilt if I have to wing an encounter where villains are expected to follow the "rules" as well.  I constantly question - "Did I do that right or did I pick the appropriate power/feat/skill combo?"  Weird I know but for 30 years that's been my personal bugaboo.  Does it physically stop me from "winging it"?  No.  I can only compare it to a white lie or taking an extra cookie when you know you shouldn't.  

Newer editions (specifically of D&D 3.x and 4.0) introduced a very tightly bound system into encounter design and balance to address previous editions lack of said sub-systems.  This attempt at balance reinforced and exacerbated my issues from the previous paragraph.

This more tightly balanced system* constrained me personally from enjoying the game.  I was more worried about "did I run that encounter right" than "is this going to be fun".  I focused more on the feat/power/ability selection that going with what I knew to be fun.

"Old school" is a less refined set of parameters allowing me to let my imagination be the engine instead of a daily/encounter/CR/miniature matrix that constrains me.

Put another way in terms I associate with (I'm a homebrewer and have a degree in restaurant and hotel cookery).  With older rules-sets I've been given a very straightforward recipe that is very forgiving and allows a lot of variation.  As long as I know my players and that they ordered "steak" I can supply them with a filet, or steak diane, or tartar and I can quickly alter the recipe as I go.  With the newer games I have a pre-defined recipe, as Mike Mearls indicated is like a symphony, that people know and if I tweak it too much the souffle will flatten or won't be recognizable for what it was supposed to be.

If I were to focus all of my attention on 4e and play it and run it more I'm sure I'd become more accustomed to it's nuances - but I think my old brain is too challenged by it


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 25, 2009)

Swanmay? 3 Hearts & 3 Lions, baby. Yeah.



amethal said:


> Iron Heroes does. ---snip---



So, it's 'make a skill check', pretty much. As it might likely be ruled in, say, 3e or 4e (though 4e has a special table for DCs and damage rolls, IIRC). Dex check with or without mods, if earlier edition, perhaps. Or % chance, whatever.

Also, IH ain't D&D.  Even if it was written by Mr. 4e. . .


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> It is, in fact, the system, and I'm having a realy hard time seeing why you feel differently.  The relationship between the DM and the players will make the system work better or worse, of course.  It doesn't change what the system actually is though.  Old D&D's system was that nearly everything was decided by DM fiat.  It's possible to dislike so much power being in the hands of one player even if he always does exactly what you want him to.





That you use the word power (and DM fiat, for that matter) rather than responsibility speaks to the point I was making.  The better DMs and players I know share those responsibilities by default with the caveat that the facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee has the final say if it really comes down to it.  Certainly the facilitator can leave those rare decisions up to chance, the dice, and many do if there is no overriding factor of which the facilitator is uniquely aware.  There are sometimes circumstanes of which only the facilitator is aware and any game that has a facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee provides for this in the rules.  Again, your choice of wording leads me to believe that you are getting hung up on some bad experiences with a particularly controlling DM(s?) that have you disallowing that games run with the earlier systems were by default more in the hands of the DM when my own experiences are contrary.  The fact that my own experiences are quite different from your situation points to something other than the ruleset we both used as the defining aspect of your own experience.  I recognize that your situation was different than mine.  I am sorry that it was not more enjoyable or, at least, less contentious for you.  But clearly it could have been different, and with the same ruleset being used just as it was used by my own groups.


----------



## Cadfan (May 25, 2009)

I'm not sure that a litcrit perspective is the best way to interpret and answer other people's posts.


----------



## Harr (May 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> That you use the word power (and DM fiat, for that matter) rather than responsibility speaks to the point I was making.  The better DMs and players I know share those responsibilities by default with the caveat that the facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee has the final say if it really comes down to it.  Certainly the facilitator can leave those rare decisions up to chance, the dice, and many do if there is no overriding factor of which the facilitator is uniquely aware.  There are sometimes circumstanes of which only the facilitator is aware and any game that has a facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee provides for this in the rules.  Again, your choice of wording leads me to believe that you are getting hung up on some bad experiences with a particularly controlling DM(s?) that have you disallowing that games run with the earlier systems were by default more in the hands of the DM when my own experiences are contrary.  The fact that my own experiences are quite different from your situation points to something other than the ruleset we both used as the defining aspect of your own experience.  I recognize that your situation was different than mine.  I am sorry that it was not more enjoyable or, at least, less contentious for you.  But clearly it could have been different, and with the same ruleset being used just as it was used by my own groups.




... or maybe he's fully aware of all that, and said the word "power" anyway cause he likes it better, assuming (correctly) that 99.9% of all who read it would understand his intent.


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

Harr said:


> ... or maybe he's fully aware of all that, and said the word "power" anyway cause he likes it better, assuming (correctly) that 99.9% of all who read it would understand his intent.





But it isn't a matter of "power" in the games that some others do play and that is the crux of the disparity.  The rest of his posts speak clearly to situations where the DM and players are often at odds and it becomes a power struggle.  I'm not saying he isn't using the correct word for his situation, I am saying that other groups look at the situation and do not assess it in terms of power or controling but rather in terms of shared responsibility.


----------



## Piratecat (May 25, 2009)

Let's not be pedantic, please. Quibbling over word choice isn't appropriate in a forum where people post from all over the world and from many different backgrounds.


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Let's not be pedantic, please. Quibbling over word choice isn't appropriate in a forum where people post from all over the world and from many different backgrounds.





Oh, make no mistake, this is not a debate about semantics and I apologize if some have taken that impression from my posts.  The words being used are just markers, verbal message tags, that point out the social dynamics at play in a cultural encounter.  It's clear to me that we had very different experiences using the same rules and, since the rules were unlikely to be the root of the differences, I was looking toward other possibilities.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

How more versus less comprehensive rules affects the process of play is just the sort of thing I think J.M. meant by "more than a feeling".

It's not a matter of, "What I like is right, and what I don't like is wrong". It's a matter of, "What is it about the design that facilitates the kinds of experiences I like, or gets in the way of those you like?"

"Old school", even when limited to D&D -- which seems to be the predominant frame of reference -- encompasses many things. The hobby of the 1970s-80s was (and that still rooted in it is) no less vibrant with creativity than the hobby focused on recent editions.

However, there is clearly overlap among the perspectives in the community; that's what makes it a community. Identifying the game features of that common region, and how they differ from the set found in games with notably different appeal is (I think) a feasible, informative ... and _rational_ undertaking.

It might be ideal from a commercial perspective if everyone liked the same things. It would be great for an avid player of Pinochle, Diplomacy, or any other game, if one could find plenty of fellow players wherever and whenever one wanted to play.

That's not the case, though. Neither "edition wars" nor affected (but not real) indifference is going to change human nature.

It can be tempting to see a competition in which more players for Game X means fewer for Game Y. I think that's so only if there's some way to induce people to play one even though they would prefer the other -- and I think such a victory would prove Pyrrhic in the long run. It seems more likely that "the only game in town" would suffer from a bad rap spread by those dissatisfied with it, a reputation that would turn away even those who might like it if they tried it.

A hobby with many points of entry, one that appeals to many different tastes, should be a win-win situation for everyone. There's a market segment with eclectic tastes. My impression "back in the day" was that such folks (including Yours Truly) tended to spend more than those with more limited interest in the field. I don't know whether that still holds true, but I know that turning them away is no profit to anyone in the hobby/industry.


----------



## Harr (May 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It's not a matter of, "What I like is right, and what I don't like is wrong". It's a matter of, "What is it about the design that facilitates the kinds of experiences I like, or gets in the way of those you like?"




Yep. I really don't see what the huge deal is here... what the guy is saying is simply "system matters", and anyone who follows RPGs on the net knows that that particular little tidbit already has years of vigorous debate behind it.

Let's just hope that the 'old-school' movement can do a (much) better job with it than their 'indie' movement counterparts did and not eventually alienate 90% of their intended market. I guess that might be Joe's whole point, but I don't see any indication that they mean to take it down that path -yet-.


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> The better DMs and players I know share those responsibilities by default with the caveat that the facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee has the final say if it really comes down to it.




That's a fine way to play the game.  It's not the way the books advocated playing the game though.  It's been at least a decade since I cracked a 2nd ed PHB/DMG, but I sincerely doubt it ever suggests that the way to address something not covered by the rules is to achieve consensus with your fellow players, only calling upon the DM when neccessary.  I'm pretty sure, however, that the basic rule of "if there's no rules for it, ask your DM" appears at least a dozen times.


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> That's a fine way to play the game.  It's not the way the books advocated playing the game though.  It's been at least a decade since I cracked a 2nd ed PHB/DMG, but I sincerely doubt it ever suggests that the way to address something not covered by the rules is to achieve consensus with your fellow players, only calling upon the DM when neccessary.  I'm pretty sure, however, that the basic rule of "if there's no rules for it, ask your DM" appears at least a dozen times.





Interesting challenge.  I suppose I could break out my books later and find some examples from 2E, 1E and OD&D that support my assertions.  Shall we assume that 3.XE and 4E are new enough that we not not look to them for arcane quotes along these lines?  Let's both do some digging and come up with actual quotes from the books so that neither of us feels as if we are just using our "feelings" (to borrow from JM) to bolster our points.


----------



## Bumbles (May 25, 2009)

Don't forget to use other sources, like Dragon magazine or even books like Gygax's Role-playing Mastery.


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Harr said:


> Yep. I really don't see what the huge deal is here... what the guy is saying is simply "system matters", and anyone who follows RPGs on the net knows that that particular little tidbit already has years of vigorous debate behind it.




System most definitely DOES matter.  However, the wise approach is to focus on what the system seeks to accomplish, not how it accomplishes it.  Take, for example, modern increasing AC vs old school decreasing AC.  I think that most would agree that modern AC is easier to work with.  Are there any advantages to using old school AC?  The only one I can think of is compatibility with existing old D&D products.  If compatibility isn't one of your goals, I can see no logical reason to use old school AC, even if you are trying to make an old scool game.

Another example is rolled attributes vs point buy.  At first, they appear to be systems that are trying to achieve the same goal(generating attributes for your character).  They create a very different style of game though.  As much as I dislike rolling for attributes, it's pretty appropriate for an old school game.  Some thought should be given to why the rules are that way though, rather than just including them because it's the way it was always done.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

The subject of how game design interacts with different kinds of "social contract" is one long ago recognized as significant.

Gary Gygax did an about-face on the question of conformity when he produced Advanced D&D. He did not (as I recall the impression I got from his columns in The Dragon) desire the demise of the original game's free-wheeling approach. However, he envisioned the codification of AD&D as a means to the end of reaching a wider audience -- a game that, like Scrabble, facilitated play among casual acquaintances or even among strangers at national tournaments.

I don't think the results quite filled that bill, partly because his own temperament was more predisposed to a "rules light" approach. I see 4E, in conjunction with the RPGA, as a model more likely to succeed in the endeavor. (How the proclivity for "supplement-itis" shall affect that remains to be seen.)


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> Interesting challenge.  I suppose I could break out my books later and find some examples from 2E, 1E and OD&D that support my assertions.  Shall we assume that 3.XE and 4E are new enough that we not not look to them for arcane quotes along these lines?  Let's both do some digging and come up with actual quotes from the books so that neither of us feels as if we are just using our "feelings" (to borrow from JM) to bolster our points.




I'll give you 4e, but why exclude 3e? It has three DMGs (DMG, DMG v3.5, DMG II), an entire run of Dragon Mags, eight years of supplements, and an entire website that still hosts "Interviews with the Designers" pages?

Still, I look forward to seeing your evidence.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Don't forget to use other sources, like Dragon magazine or even books like Gygax's Role-playing Mastery.



I hope someday to get the Dragon Archives CD, as my (never comprehensive) magazine collection is no longer extant. The _Role-playing Mastery_ book is another item on my "wish list".


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 25, 2009)

Harr said:


> Let's just hope that the 'old-school' movement can do a (much) better job with it than their 'indie' movement counterparts did and not eventually alienate 90% of their intended market. I guess that might be Joe's whole point, but I don't see any indication that they mean to take it down that path -yet-.



I'm not sure that that _is_ Joe's point (but, of course, I'll let him say one way of the other, rather than outright assume either way). Thing is, he's decided _not_ to use older games (like OD&D or AD&D), but rather 'do old school' with 3e. More or less in his words, there.

So he personally was probably not even _going to be_ part of that 'intended market'.

But that aside, I really don't see a parallel of that kind (between the old school and the indie RPG movements). From what I _can_ see, it's blooming quite healthily, as it has been for well over a couple of years (or three?) - anyhow, a while. And it doesn't seem to have any of that rather unfortunate arrogance etc. attached to it. Old school is simply a style of play, one facilitated (funnily enough) by old school systems. Hardly a grandiose claim or swaggerin' 'pon the high ground.

But then, people will sometimes see what they want to see. And yes, that could also apply to me here. Who knows.


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> Interesting challenge.  I suppose I could break out my books later and find some examples from 2E, 1E and OD&D that support my assertions.  Shall we assume that 3.XE and 4E are new enough that we not not look to them for arcane quotes along these lines?  Let's both do some digging and come up with actual quotes from the books so that neither of us feels as if we are just using our "feelings" (to borrow from JM) to bolster our points.




As I got rid of all my AD&D stuff back in the 90s, about the only resource I'll be able to utilize in this is D&D Rules Cyclopedia.  I really wish I held on to my 2nd ed DMG, as there's been several debates I wished I could reference it in rather than working off of biased memory.  I've tried to scrounge up a copy locally a few times, with no luck.   I'll see what I can dig up in the good old RC though.

I do suggest though that if we do this, we limit it to the core books only.  They are the only constant among D&D players, and they have the greatest impact on the game.  Dragon articles, while they may be(and often were) high quality content, don't have the same impact, as a relatively small percentage of D&D players would have read any specific article.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

> The wise approach is to focus on what the system seeks to accomplish, not how it accomplishes it.



I think they are naturally complimentary in a successful design, at odds in one that fails to achieve the design goals. However, the goals are certainly "the horse before the cart" -- and recognizing that different games are designed to accomplish different things is an excellent start.

The tendency to take one's own priorities as a player for some sort of absolute standard is most unhelpful, as is an emotional attachment to some term as a badge of prestige rather than as a conveyor of meaning. The combination can be terribly counter-productive.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 25, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> And it doesn't seem to have any of that rather unfortunate arrogance etc. attached to it.




I dunno. There are some pretty vocal individuals and communities screaming about the superiority of older RPG systems over currently in-print systems, complete with name-calling and newly coined vernacular that makes grade school children look grown up by comparison. 

I can't name such individuals or communities per forum rules, but I'm certain you can nail down a _few_ with a Google search. Frankly, those individuals and communities turn _me_ off of certain 'old school' products as much as their Indie counterparts turned me off of certain 'Indie' games.


----------



## Cadfan (May 25, 2009)

The only thing I'll say about what is or is not "old school" is this:

1. If "old school" is just "stuff I'm nostalgic for," then whatever, knock yourselves out and have a good time with it.  Don't expect anyone to be playing the way you do in 20 years, though.

2. If "old school," even for a specific person, is a specific style of game, then... the impression I've gotten over the years is that most "old school" styles of play are methods of adapting an intransigent ruleset into some semblance of fun.  In that case, figuring out exactly what it was that was fun, and then obtaining and/or writing a game that actually facilitates that instead of merely allowing it, would have some value and possibly contribute meaningfully to the overall culture and repertoire of RPGs.

For example, some people play a "Tomb of Horrors" style game where the best method of play is to hire a dozen or so henchmen and expend their lives callously, or run around with ten foot poles and systematic door-checking practices, etc, etc.  This is something you can do in a lot of older games (and some newer ones), but I've always felt that it was sort of a hack of the game system, and that maybe a game written _from the ground up_ with a laser like focus on encouraging this sort of play might be a much, much better choice.

Same thing for the "magical mcguyver" type game where PCs solve their problems with a wealth of spells, magic items, and the occasional man-sized keg of alchemist's fire.  You can do that with a lot of game systems (3e is quite good at it) but none of these systems were written with the explicit intention of supporting this kind of game.  Maybe a game designed with the intention that players play in this manner would be an even better fit- it might do things like omit the classes that can't meaningfully contribute to this style of game, or alter them to help them fit in better.

There are probably a dozen other popular allegedly "old school" styles of play, so this sort of list could probably go on.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

"Bashing" is definitely out there, very prominently in some quarters. Certain derogatory terms seem to have wide currency, and some others that (I think) were not coined with insulting intent seem to have acquired such connotations.

There are individuals whose creative works I much admire, but whose animosity toward _each other_ can be even more tiresome than their bile for the vogue in game design.

I don't think it's any nearer a critical mass, though, than the bad behavior among, e.g., 3E/4E partisans. Somehow, the diverse aspects of the hobby have survived the trolling and flame wars for which at least one prominent Web site is rather infamous.


----------



## Ariosto (May 25, 2009)

I don't see that a game with a "laser like focus" on a sharply limited range of play would be objectively better than a more wide-open one.

The valuation implicit in "adapting an intransigent ruleset into some semblance of fun" is why I have a growing distaste for encountering the word "fun" in such discussions. It is too often associated with a projection onto others of one's own preferences, suggesting that they are lost lambs needing guidance because they don't really know how to have fun.

That is of a kind with telling people that their motives are "just nostalgia", rather than listening to what they have to say about their personal experiences.


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> As I got rid of all my AD&D stuff back in the 90s, about the only resource I'll be able to utilize in this is D&D Rules Cyclopedia.  I really wish I held on to my 2nd ed DMG, as there's been several debates I wished I could reference it in rather than working off of biased memory.  I've tried to scrounge up a copy locally a few times, with no luck.   I'll see what I can dig up in the good old RC though.





I feel for you.  I canot tell you how many sad stories I have heard over the years about the mom who tossed the box of stuff while a friend was away at college or the guy who got married and "put away childish things" only to have his wife ask him later to teach her how to play.  I'll try to point out phrases and quotes that support either/or position, as I am sure we both have some basis for our positions, and we'll see what comes of it.

Also, RC?





outsider said:


> I do suggest though that if we do this, we limit it to the core books only.  They are the only constant among D&D players, and they have the greatest impact on the game.  Dragon articles, while they may be(and often were) high quality content, don't have the same impact, as a relatively small percentage of D&D players would have read any specific article.





Despite Bumbles's suggestion above, I think it is fair for you to make that call on the scope of our inquiry into the past.  Let's face it, if we include too much, we could go on until even 7E is obsolete.  Core-only would certain capture the influence over the widest sphere of players and is likely something that allows us to recruit most of the gamers on EN World to assist us.

May I suggest that you start up a new thread with the parameters you have in mind (feel free to quote us both in the OP to help lend some context for others) and we'll get everyone we can to join in the fun?  Perhaps people can even add in some stories about how they came by their books and a memory or two of their early games?


----------



## Bumbles (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> As I got rid of all my AD&D stuff back in the 90s, about the only resource I'll be able to utilize in this is D&D Rules Cyclopedia.  I really wish I held on to my 2nd ed DMG, as there's been several debates I wished I could reference it in rather than working off of biased memory.  I've tried to scrounge up a copy locally a few times, with no luck.   I'll see what I can dig up in the good old RC though.




Well, I am going to move in a couple months, but I still haven't put up my 2e books, would you like me to scan through it for anything in particular?  I can also do the same with the 1e books.



> I do suggest though that if we do this, we limit it to the core books only.  They are the only constant among D&D players, and they have the greatest impact on the game.  Dragon articles, while they may be(and often were) high quality content, don't have the same impact, as a relatively small percentage of D&D players would have read any specific article.




I think that's a bad reason to dismiss Dragon, which as an official publication is one great source of the Word, as it were, beyond that found in the core books.  The core books while useful, are not all that much more defining as to what any percentage of players are doing/thinking anyway, as they represent what their authors think, not necessarily what the players are doing.  Which may be me being influenced by reading the foreword of the 2e DMG right now where it pretty much says that is the case...


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 25, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I dunno. There are some pretty vocal individuals and communities screaming about the superiority of older RPG systems over currently in-print systems, complete with name-calling and newly coined vernacular that makes grade school children look grown up by comparison.



There are some examples of it even in this thread.  I won't add the names or the posters or link to the individual posts, but they are here.  These two by the same person:



> That sort of "no, you just can't" attitude is something I associate with the personality politics of high-school, reinforcing the theory that retro-gaming is gaining popularity because official Dungeons & Dragons is now designed solely for adolescents.



Yea...  that's not rub anyone the wrong way...



> I played a 4E campaign and DMed another. I enjoyed it, but found it was thematically shallow, a bit tacky, and apparently geared more toward providing immortal Mary Sues for teenagers than challenging the ingenuity and cunning of the players. That's a perfectly legitimate design/marketing approach, but not the game I want to play.
> 
> There are probably many game systems that can provide a challenge for experienced players, but D&D is the one I'm most familiar with, so I gravitate toward clones of old editions for the style of game I want to play. You can call that nostalgia, but you'd be wrong.
> 
> A decade from now, many of today's 4E boosters will be looking for more flexible games which they can relate to as adults. Not all will go for an old D&D or clone, but they'll realise then why so many didn't hop on the 4E train all those years ago.



And current 4e gamers can't relate to their game system as adults?  And as a 4e DM I am shackled because my system is "geared more toward providing immortal Mary Sues for teenagers than challenging the ingenuity and cunning of the players"?


----------



## outsider (May 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> Also, RC?




Rules Cyclopedia D&D.  Basically BECMI+some extras crammed into one book.

Taking a quick skim of it, phrases such as "the dm decides", "the dm can decide", "the dm will decide", "up to the DM to determine" and the like are EXTREMELY common.  My guess is if I was to take an average, I'd find one of those phrases at least twice per page.  Though I haven't dug a specific quote that states "if there's no rule for it, ask the dm", it is HEAVILY implied that the DM handles such things.


----------



## Bumbles (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> Though I haven't dug a specific quote that states "if there's no rule for it, ask the dm", it is HEAVILY implied that the DM handles such things.




Well, this bit from the introduction to the 2e DMG says:

  One of the principles guiding this project from the very beginning and which is expressed throughout this book, is this:  _The DM has primary responsibility for the success of his campaign and he must take an active hand in guiding it._  That is an important concept.  If you are skimming through this introduction, slow down and read it again.  It's crucial that you understand what you are getting into.
  The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules.  Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you.  Each DM must tailor his campaign to fit his own style and the style of his players.

Also a few paragraphs later, there is advice to read Dragon for more information on other aspects of refereeing that's beyond the scope of the DMG.


----------



## Mark (May 25, 2009)

outsider said:


> Rules Cyclopedia D&D.  Basically BECMI+some extras crammed into one book.





 I had thought that was an abbreviation for a place, like a name for resale shop of some sort. 

As to BECMI, I was not a player or DM of those rules.  I started in 1974 with the little box and booklets, moved to the hardcovers with AD&D1E, then on to AD&D2E, then to 3.XE and so forth.  Perhaps the tenor of that branch of D&D is a bit different in tone?  We'll see.




outsider said:


> Taking a quick skim of it, phrases such as "the dm decides", "the dm can decide", "the dm will decide", "up to the DM to determine" and the like are EXTREMELY common.  My guess is if I was to take an average, I'd find one of those phrases at least twice per page.  Though I haven't dug a specific quote that states "if there's no rule for it, ask the dm", it is HEAVILY implied that the DM handles such things.





I think you are right to set aside those DM calls as a separate issue from the no rule applies situation, though they both make up the impression that DMs and players would take from a reading, so both should bear some weight.


----------



## outsider (May 26, 2009)

Mark said:


> I had thought that was an abbreviation for a place, like a name for resale shop of some sort.
> 
> As to BECMI, I was not a player or DM of those rules.  I started in 1974 with the little box and booklets, moved to the hardcovers with AD&D1E, then on to AD&D2E, then to 3.XE and so forth.  Perhaps the tenor of that branch of D&D is a bit different in tone?  We'll see.




It is possible.  Rules Cyclopedia was written in the early 90s, in the 2nd edition era.  While I'm assuming that it accurately presents what Mentzer wrote back in the early 80s, it's possible that it differs in this area.  2nd edition D&D was my first version of D&D.  I grew to dislike it for many reasons.  Many of the problems I had with it weren't present in Rules Cyclopedia, so I started getting into that.  I never played 1st ed AD&D(aside from intergrating various 1e books into 2e), and probably never will due to many of the problems I had with 2nd ed being present in 1st ed as well.  I'm one of the players that really benefitted from the somewhat odd decision TSR made to keep the D&D line running at the same time as the AD&D line.  These days, I'd gladly play any version of D&D that doesn't have an A in front of it, heh.


----------



## Remathilis (May 26, 2009)

outsider said:


> It is possible.  Rules Cyclopedia was written in the early 90s, in the 2nd edition era.  While I'm assuming that it accurately presents what Mentzer wrote back in the early 80s, it's possible that it differs in this area.  2nd edition D&D was my first version of D&D.  I grew to dislike it for many reasons.  Many of the problems I had with it weren't present in Rules Cyclopedia, so I started getting into that.  I never played 1st ed AD&D(aside from intergrating various 1e books into 2e), and probably never will due to many of the problems I had with 2nd ed being present in 1st ed as well.  I'm one of the players that really benefitted from the somewhat odd decision TSR made to keep the D&D line running at the same time as the AD&D line.  These days, I'd gladly play any version of D&D that doesn't have an A in front of it, heh.




Ironically, I'm in your boat. I couldn't actually play AD&D 1e or 2e beyond a (literally) nostalgic one-shot down memory lane, I couldn't make a campaign of it. I'd much rather play RC D&D (despite some of ITS shortfalls) but, if forced to play something more "retro" I'd rather play BFRPG (which RC D&D with common sense updates for the modern era) or Castles & Crusades. 

Both BFRPG do what I want in a "retro" game; create a game that evokes the feel of yore with the updated mechanics of today. Both use upwards AC, address problems like level drain, etc. IMHO, they don't go far enough in some areas (I'd love C&C to have a REAL skill system, for example) but they are great examples of retros that feel like old-D&D but don't get hung up on percentile strength, level limits, or other antiquated rules like that.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 26, 2009)

I found two “mother may rules” in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. 

Chapter  5: Other Character Abilities (Skills and the DM)
The DM decides when a character can try his skill roll, and the DM also decides what sort of effect the skill can have in a situation.

Chapter 13: Dungeon Master Procedures (Equipment Not Listed)
Beginning players should not be allowed to purchase equipment other than the items given on the lists in Chapter 4 unless you decide otherwise. If a player wants a piece of equipment not listed and you decided to allow it, you must decide on its cost, encumbrance, and other characteristics; if you allow the player to come up with the equipment entering the campaign and becoming a problem. 

Note: the above is ambiguous, a strict reading seems to suggest that only beginning players need to ask for permission, but the warning seems to apply to all players.

Skills under the Rules Cyclopedia were completely optional, and from reading the text, it seems that there wasn't _technically_ a set list of skills, but a general list and the DM was supposed to pick and chose from that list as will as make up any other setting appropriate skills. So, I can see how, if the DM used the skills under that system at all, it may seem like an exercise in permissions to try to do some things out of combat.


----------



## Treebore (May 26, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> (I'd love C&C to have a REAL skill system, for example)




*Sigh*, it does.


As for old school quotes, etc, read my sig.


----------



## joethelawyer (May 26, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> I'm not sure that that _is_ Joe's point (but, of course, I'll let him say one way of the other, rather than outright assume either way). Thing is, he's decided _not_ to use older games (like OD&D or AD&D), but rather 'do old school' with 3e. More or less in his words, there.
> 
> So he personally was probably not even _going to be_ part of that 'intended market'.
> 
> ...





It was part of my point, the second to the last paragraph, where I basically  said that labeling it could lead to problems and fighting, and have a detrimental effect on the whole old school thing. How defining it might cause the whole thing to fall apart.  But no, I didn't mean to  compare it to the indie movement people are talking about.  Until your post, I assumed people were talking about the indie music thing when they said indie movement. 

And you're right I am playing 3.x/PF, trying to make it as old school as I can, but that doesn't mean I am not the target market, at least in part. For example, the Freeport campaign we begin next week will have Troll Lord's Castle Zagyg as the megadungeon, and Joe Bloch's Castle Greyhawk (updated just yesterday I believe with new levels) will be used to take over where CZ left off.  Part of the dungeon of course will be Dungeonland, and at higher levels Isle of the Ape, as I still have the modules.  So though my base system is 3.x/PF, I am definitely in te market for god stuff with old school flavor, subjectively defined as old school by me of course.    When Rob Kuntz publishes his levels for Castle Greyhawk I will incorporate them as well.  Anyone know when he is going to do that, btw?  I can't wait for that, and his book Robilar Remembers.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (May 26, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> When Rob Kuntz publishes his levels for Castle Greyhawk I will incorporate them as well.  Anyone know when he is going to do that, btw?



The Original Bottle City and The Original Living Room are both from his Castle Greyhawk stuff (Bottle City being a special sublevel and the Living Room being a big set-piece room).


----------



## Korgoth (May 26, 2009)

I play Old School games because I prefer the play experience afforded by the game design philosophy and game mechanical approaches of that era. The characteristic lightness, fluidity and openness help me plan and run better games and facilitate my enjoyment at the table. The method of "rulings not rules" and the absence of mechanical determinators (like feats) which delimit possible actions (like the way that feats delimit the actions of those who don't have the feat) give me an excellent dynamic of interaction between rules and "world exploration".

Nostalgia is irrelevant and a useless emotion in itself. "Feelings" in general aren't very important except insofar as they contribute to the creative process of the GM. If they help him come up with a more inventive and enjoyable game then fine. Now, Joe and others can play games based on feelings if they want. But I consider any statement that Old School play in general is based upon nostalgia to not only be a lie but an outright *insult*.

As to James' original post, I don't know why people these days are so phobic about laying down principles and defining terms. If you're going to use a word seriously, you should know what it means.* Otherwise you're just spouting fancy talk and it's deceptive.

* - I heard a certain recent entrant into the political arena use the word "dialogue" when "monologue" was the clear intent. It was someone who should have known better.


----------



## rounser (May 26, 2009)

> I found two “mother may rules” in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.



My favourite is hidden away in DM Procedures.  

Basically, the DM can overrule if any thief skill roll works or fails, without rolling.  This allows you to play RC kind of like the Lego Star Wars/Indiana Jones/Batman games, where the thief will have an autosuccess on disarming traps, opening chests and sneaking around just for being a thief if you want the game to play that way, and still get the normal roll in difficult circumstances.  This washed away many of my issues with the thief class as written.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 26, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I dunno. There are some pretty vocal individuals and communities screaming about the superiority of older RPG systems over currently in-print systems, complete with name-calling and newly coined vernacular that makes grade school children look grown up by comparison.
> 
> I can't name such individuals or communities per forum rules, but I'm certain you can nail down a _few_ with a Google search. Frankly, those individuals and communities turn _me_ off of certain 'old school' products as much as their Indie counterparts turned me off of certain 'Indie' games.



Oops. Wow, did I not say what I meant to say there. 

I actually meant to refer to the creators, publishers, and. . . marketers (?) of both D&D retro clones and new material (e.g., adventures) for classic D&D / retro clone systems.

When compared with _some of_* the creators, publishers et al, of indie games over the last. . . hm, several years, anyway.

Of course, you're right, in that there are some very vocal and unpleasant uh, voices on every conceivable 'side', on the webs. Same as it ever was. But yeah, the public face I guess? That's markedly different, in places.

* That's right, I don't mean _all of_.

(All AFAICS, etc.)

Also, thanks for the clarification, Joe. And hey, I certainly understand that concern, fwiw.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 26, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Oops. Wow, did I not say what I meant to say there.
> 
> I actually meant to refer to the creators, publishers, and. . . marketers (?) of both D&D retro clones and new material (e.g., adventures) for classic D&D / retro clone systems.
> 
> ...




Oh, no, I understood you — I just don't agree.  I think that there are just as many (if not more) nasty folks designing and marketing 'retro' games today as there were designing and marketing indie games back in the day. Again, I'm not going to name names, but do you see those links in my signature? Those are the _only_ clone efforts or retro games that I support (other than Mutant Future, which I figured was covered well enough with one link to the GG site).


----------



## Desdichado (May 28, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> Nostalgia is irrelevant and a useless emotion in itself. "Feelings" in general aren't very important except insofar as they contribute to the creative process of the GM. If they help him come up with a more inventive and enjoyable game then fine. Now, Joe and others can play games based on feelings if they want. But I consider any statement that Old School play in general is based upon nostalgia to not only be a lie but an outright *insult*.



What games you decide to play may or may not be driven by nostalgia, the the Old School Revival movement certainly is.  Otherwise, there's no explanation for how retro-clones of OD&D, BD&D and 1e AD&D can all be lumped into the same movement, when they don't really have much in common other than their year of publication.  They had different goals, and different methodology and a pretty different approach.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> What games you decide to play may or may not be driven by nostalgia, the the Old School Revival movement certainly is.  Otherwise, there's no explanation for how retro-clones of OD&D, BD&D and 1e AD&D can all be lumped into the same movement, when they don't really have much in common other than their year of publication.  They had different goals, and different methodology and a pretty different approach.



I disagree. OD&D, BD&D and AD&D are all variations on the same game. They have their differences, but they are much more related that 3rd edition is to any of them.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 28, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> but don't get hung up on percentile strength, level limits, or other antiquated rules like that.




I really dislike the usage of the word antiquated. Games aren't like technology where there is a constant improvement and as a matter of fact, I have no problems at all with, for example, percentile strength. I dislike and don't use level limits, but this has nothing to do with progress in game design... I stopped using them before 2nd edition came out.


----------



## Desdichado (May 28, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> I disagree. OD&D, BD&D and AD&D are all variations on the same game. They have their differences, but they are much more related that 3rd edition is to any of them.



And I disagree with that.  AD&D in particular represented a fairly radical departure in design philosophy from OD&D, and I believe 3e was the natural, evolutionary endpoint for that design philosophy.  3e and 1e were, fundamentally, designed around the same principles and for the same reasons, in spite of the differences in execution.

BD&D, arguably (perhaps) was truer to the original design principles of OD&D, or at least it lacks the change in philosophy that Gygax himself has described plenty of times that informed the formulation of AD&D.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> And I disagree with that.  AD&D in particular represented a fairly radical departure in design philosophy from OD&D, and I believe 3e was the natural, evolutionary endpoint for that design philosophy.  3e and 1e were, fundamentally, designed around the same principles and for the same reasons, in spite of the differences in execution.




I can easily run BD&D adventures in AD&D doing the very little conversion needed on the fly. 3rd edition is a wholly different game that maintains only the exterior trappings of AD&D.


----------



## Desdichado (May 28, 2009)

Here's a cut and paste from Wikipedia, which is in turn heavily quoted from Gygax himself in Dragon #26.



> Gygax, who wrote the advanced game, wanted an expansive game with rulings on any conceivable situation which might come up during play. J. Eric Holmes, the editor of the basic game, preferred a lighter tone with more room for personal improvisation. As a result, the basic game included many rules and concepts which contradicted comparable ones in the advanced game. Confusing matters further, the original D&D boxed set remained in publication until 1979, since it remained a healthy seller for TSR.
> 
> Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was designed to create a tighter, more structured game system than the loose framework of the original game. While seen by many as a revision of D&D, AD&D was at the time declared to be "neither an expansion nor a revision of the old game, it is a new game". The AD&D game was not intended to be directly compatible with D&D and it required some conversion to play between the rule sets.
> 
> In 1981 Basic Dungeons & Dragons was revised by Tom Moldvay. However, the rules for the Dungeons & Dragons game continued to diverge and it became a separate and distinct product from TSR’s flagship game, AD&D. This game was promoted as a continuation of the original D&D tone, whereas AD&D was an advancement of the mechanics. Although simpler overall than the 'Advanced' game, it included rules for some situations not covered in AD&D.



In any case, *I* could easily run BD&D or AD&D adventures in 3e without having to do much conversion (and what little I needed to do I could do on the fly) too, so where does that leave us?  Other than the fact that the rallying cry of the Old Schoolers who lump AD&D (1e), BD&D and OD&D together as having some objective "sameness" that marks them as separate from later D&D is in direct contradiction to the game designers' stated intent, nowhere that I can see.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Here's a cut and paste from Wikipedia, which is in turn heavily quoted from Gygax himself in Dragon #26.
> 
> 
> In any case, *I* could easily run BD&D or AD&D adventures in 3e without having to do much conversion (and what little I needed to do I could do on the fly) too, so where does that leave us?  Other than the fact that the rallying cry of the Old Schoolers who lump AD&D (1e), BD&D and OD&D together as having some objective "sameness" that marks them as separate from later D&D is in direct contradiction to the game designers' stated intent, nowhere that I can see.




AD&D and BD&D play very similarly. When I talk about doing the conversion on the fly, I'm literal: when I ran B2 for AD&D I mostly used exactly the same numbers that were written in the module... I hardly think that it's possible to do that with 3e.

The sameness is objective and since you quoted Gygax he certainly appreciated the different versions of "old" D&D and he disliked 3x.


----------



## Desdichado (May 28, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> AD&D and BD&D play very similarly. When I talk about doing the conversion on the fly, I'm literal: when I ran B2 for AD&D I mostly used exactly the same numbers that were written in the module... I hardly think that it's possible to do that with 3e.



You'd be wrong.  I could.  Or, I could just manually adjust them on the fly based on what they needed to be, too.  It's not hard.


			
				Nikosandros said:
			
		

> The sameness is objective and since you quoted Gygax he certainly appreciated the different versions of "old" D&D and he disliked 3x.



No, the differences between AD&D in particular and the other two is objective.  I don't much care if Gygax liked 3e or not.  For one thing, that's pretty irrelevent to what we're talking about.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> You'd be wrong.  I could.  Or, I could just manually adjust them on the fly based on what they needed to be, too.  It's not hard.



But you have to make up a lot of numbers, like all the DCs for skill checks. I'm sure that an experienced DM can make them up on the fly, but by this token a lot of fantasy RPG would really be the same game, which is patently false.



Hobo said:


> No, the differences between AD&D in particular and the other two is objective.




There are differences, but they are much smaller than the difference between AD&D and 3rd edition.


----------



## Desdichado (May 28, 2009)

Well, I don't think there's a lot to be gained by continually restating our divergent opinions at each other.  I don't consider making up Skill checks DCs to be a significant hurdle to running a module without prior conversion work.  Nor do I see how an added skill system suddenly is the "break point" beyond which suddenly we're in brand new territory but with all the things AD&D added to D&D (beyond that which was in, say, OD&D) doesn't.  But clearly you think there's something there that I can't see.  

Because to me, 3e was very obviously an evolved version of the same design principles that informed the AD&D split from OD&D/BD&D... which was where the really signifcant change happened.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 28, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Well, I don't think there's a lot to be gained by continually restating our divergent opinions at each other.




Agreed.


----------



## Remathilis (May 28, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> I really dislike the usage of the word antiquated. Games aren't like technology where there is a constant improvement and as a matter of fact, I have no problems at all with, for example, percentile strength. I dislike and don't use level limits, but this has nothing to do with progress in game design... I stopped using them before 2nd edition came out.




I meant antiquated as in "no longer commonly used" and by that, I mean no recent RPG (aside from the faithful clones) use them. C&C doesn't. Neither does BFRPG. Obviously, WotC editions of D&D don't, nor does any d20 inspired variant ruleset (be it M&M, Conan, Trued20, or such.) Of course, no other RPG NOT derived of D&D (Storyteller, Shadowrun, Palladium, or d6 WEG) uses mechanics like these either.

Simply put, Level limits, % strength, and Thac0 (as well as a few others) are antiquated because no one uses them beyond the games that already have them. No new RPG (even so called retros or retro-inspired) seem to use them either. They belong to the dustbin of history from a designers standpoint.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 28, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> There are differences, but they are much smaller than the difference between AD&D and 3rd edition.




There is no objective reason to say this at all - comments to this effect on either side IMO are completely without substance and get us nowhere.

Take, for example - a cantaloupe, a basketball, and a strawberry.  Is the cantaloupe more like a basketball, or like a strawberry?  To settle this in an objective way, you need a measure of difference (perhaps call it a metric).  Otherwise IMO you're talking about opinion in the guise of fact.  (Is AC 15 really different from AC 5?  How many "difference points" should that mechanic count for?)

So a cantaloupe is similar to a basketball in size and shape.  But if you're going to sit down to dinner then a different set of criteria for "sameness" than size should probably be used.  

This criteria might be defined for old-school.  Though that criteria might leave out things that some else wouldn't leave out (as was pointed out earlier).  Ultimately, like with the dinner analogy, I question the usefulness of any set of criteria.  Define what you mean, for example: "old school games have the flumph" and then people can decide what they want to do about that information.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 29, 2009)

Hobo said:


> And I disagree with that.  AD&D in particular represented a fairly radical departure in design philosophy from OD&D, and I believe 3e was the natural, evolutionary endpoint for that design philosophy.  3e and 1e were, fundamentally, designed around the same principles and for the same reasons, in spite of the differences in execution.
> 
> BD&D, arguably (perhaps) was truer to the original design principles of OD&D, or at least it lacks the change in philosophy that Gygax himself has described plenty of times that informed the formulation of AD&D.






Nikosandros said:


> I can easily run BD&D adventures in AD&D doing the very little conversion needed on the fly. 3rd edition is a wholly different game that maintains only the exterior trappings of AD&D.




   How much trouble am I going to get into for saying that I agree with you both? 

_Mechanically_, BD&D and AD&D are closer to each other than 3E--they tend to use the same basic structures, methods and meanings of terms, although with some variations (AD&D tends to add details and nuances where BD&D lacks them). The rules for 3E, though recognizably the same general game, tend to have some striking differences.

_Philosophically_, 3E is the endpoint of the AD&D vision as set for by Gygax in the article in DRAGON #26 and other places, although the game was not always faithful to this even under his authorship and management--a unified, comprehensive and consistent set of rules that addresses everything and can be treated as uniform across groups. (This, I believe, was one of the reasons so much emphasis was placed on 'official' rules during the 1E era.)  BD&D never had that, and emphasized the group and the DM's authority over the rules more than the 'official' material. 

   Interestingly, I think the games moved closer to one another in some ways during the 2E era. BD&D acquired more bells and whistles with things like the Gazetteers and Creature Crucibles, and AD&D 2E got much less uptight about 'official' and became almost bewilderingly open to group customization, optional rules, and molding the game to fit the setting and the group.

   Another reason I think the difference between the two philosophies is harder to see is that while AD&D (after moving both forwards, backwards and sideways along its development track in 2E) evolved into 3E, BD&D never really evolved to match. It never even got the wholesale revision that was 2E, much less the 'rebuild the game to make it more itself' that 3E was. I have heard, however, that some of the folks brainstorming 3E at TSR/WotC were considering a rules-light, storytelling-focused revision. I would really like to see what lines they were thinking along; while the other two visions for the Third Edition ('clean up the game but keep the fundamentals the same' and 'rebuild it to make it the best (A)D&D it can be') have good exemplars these days (C&C and 3.X), we haven't really seen what the 'lighter, story-focused D&D' might have been.

   4E? At this point, I think 4E's the third stream, alongside B/X--BECMI/RC as one continuum and 1E--[2E]--3.0--3.5 as the second. Its philosophy seems different from either, something of a hybrid but with its own unique take on the D&D experience, the role of the rules, and other philosophical concepts.


----------



## Ariosto (May 29, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin, have some XP!

2E explicitly backed off from the "conformity" philosophy, but also nurtured the notion that the best way to be a nonconformist was to buy lots of official "option" products.

The 1E message seems largely to have been a dead letter, house rules proliferating regardless of what Gary Said (which was the reverse of what Gary Said Before).

But that message, plus additional rules, is to my mind really the big difference between OD&D and AD&D. If I want to include much of the expansions to the former that were included in the latter, then I'm inclined to prefer AD&D -- because the mostly subtle revisions seem to me by and large improvements. They are pretty subtle, though.

Some people were blissfully unaware that the several different lines were supposedly "different games". Others even today know but don't give much of a darn and blithely mix a bit of this with a bit of that. Hardly anyone in my experience cares whether a module is for OD&D, Holmes, 1E, Moldvay, Mentzer or 2E (except that 2E has a poor reputation in some quarters for a lot stuff that has little to do with practical mechanics in modules).


----------



## Desdichado (May 29, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> How much trouble am I going to get into for saying that I agree with you both?



None by me.  Although AD&D really started sailing in a completely different direction, it hadn't really gone very far away from BD&D mechanically yet.  I'll be the first to admit that.  I do, however, think that the release of AD&D and the design philosophy that informed it, were a real watershed moment in the evolution of D&D.  Because of that, I don't know that I see a movement that is inclusive enough to have AD&D, BD&D and OD&D wrapped up in it as one that's based on anything concrete other than "released before about 1983 or so."  If you've got systems from both sides of the watershed divide, then you're too inclusive to have created a movement that's meaningful as separate from simply older D&D.


----------



## Ariosto (May 29, 2009)

Well, some AD&D devotees have raised that concern. "Is the rising tide really going to float _our_ boat?" I think there's still even some worry about OSRIC stealing thunder from the classic Gygaxian canon.

Still, the fact that some very highly respected members of the online AD&D community are also OD&D fans helps to ease tensions. Some "elder statesmen" very ably bridge the deeper 1E/2E rift as well. Heck, there are quite a few who turned back from (and perhaps some still playing) 3E who can speak with wisdom and diplomacy from firsthand appreciation of the "new school" design philosophy.

There are even people who enjoy 4E -- but don't feel compelled to play the "just the same" or "better" card in addressing something distinctly different.

For that matter, there seem to be quite a few who use house rules in one way or another similar to some techniques in 4E! It does not follow that they like the new game.

D&D has a notable hegemony in the movement. Tunnels & Trolls, Traveller, RuneQuest and other seminal games are clearly in the back seat, with the D&Ders at the wheel. That those three games have editions in print that are not so far from the old ones (although Mongoose RQ is a pretty notable departure) may be part of that. Basically, though, I think it just reflects the perennial (so far) position of D&D.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 29, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Matthew L. Martin, have some XP!




  :bows: Thank you; you're too kind.



> 2E explicitly backed off from the "conformity" philosophy, but also nurtured the notion that the best way to be a nonconformist was to buy lots of official "option" products.




  Heh. They _did_ have to try and make money, although it got rather extreme. I think the sense that you didn't _have_ to make everything 'official' may have been a bit of a liberation for the designers, who didn't have to keep all previous material in mind when designing, and they may have gone overboard in response. Still, there were some gems amid the dross and half-baked ideas, and I think the official game has lost a lot (not all) of that willingness to offer variants and new takes on subjects since the 3E changeover. Perhaps it's part of the greater emphasis on organized play, which was as I understand it one of the reasons for creating AD&D in the first place, or the desire to create a 'reunified' fanbase after the 'fracturing' of 2E days.



> The 1E message seems largely to have been a dead letter, house rules proliferating regardless of what Gary Said (which was the reverse of what Gary Said Before).




   True; to my understanding, even the 1E rulebooks and DRAGON articles waffled. But wasn't there a lot of debate and Forum wars over 'official' AD&D and the 'right' way to play back then? I wasn't there; I know the era only through old Dragons and hearsay in places like this.




Hobo said:


> Because of that, I don't know that I see a movement that is inclusive enough to have AD&D, BD&D and OD&D wrapped up in it as one that's based on anything concrete other than "released before about 1983 or so."  If you've got systems from both sides of the watershed divide, then you're too inclusive to have created a movement that's meaningful as separate from simply older D&D.




   I get the impression that the Old School Movement is largely OD&D in philosophy, seeing AD&D as a set of 'rules options'. However, I only know it through what's said in places like this and RPG.net; I visited Grognardia once and spent enough time on it to realize I'm pretty much an archnemesis of the old school movement, given that my fundamental influences include things like 2E, Dragonlance (although the post-WoS material and the whole 'Balance' concept have turned me off) and Ravenloft.


----------



## Ariosto (May 29, 2009)

> But wasn't there a lot of debate and Forum wars over 'official' AD&D and the 'right' way to play back then?



I can't speak to BBSs, CompuServe, etc.. _The Dragon_, of course, had its back-and-forth in "Out on a Limb" and replies to queries in "Sage Advice" -- plus philosophy "From the Sorcerer's Scroll". In my experience, it was chiefly Dragon subscribers who made up the minority of players who knew (much less loudly advocated) the "official" line in the '80s. The much smaller-circulation 'zines such as _Alarums & Excursions_, _The Wild Hunt_, _The Dungeoneer_, and so on -- even _Different Worlds_ and _The Space Gamer_ -- were more eclectic even than Dragon (which in those days was not precisely a "house organ" of TSR). "Noisy minority" pretty well characterizes the One True Wayers in my memory.

As to organized play, I'm pretty impressed by what I've seen of the 4E RPGA in my neck of the woods. I wonder about the hindrances posed by complexity and other aspects of WotC's design -- but on balance, it looks to me better suited to the putative end than was 1E AD&D.

However, I think the latter suffered not only from inadequate editing but also from the author's heart not really being in the project of standardization. In his later years, when the Dungeon Master ran D&D it was the funky original game with (naturally) a few house rules.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (May 29, 2009)

"I see my manticore walking away..."


I may have been too young, but I can't recall any edition conflict over Basic D&D and AD&D back in the day. Now when 2e came along when I was in college, that made the 3e/4e edition wars look like a walk in the park. And that was without the internet.

For the record, you can put me in the "Second Edition deserved to die and I hope it burns in Hell!" camp. 

I agree that 4th Edition is off in its own little stream, that could be a reason I've liked it.



Those of you out there that follow comic books (especially DC)  know what real "old school running wild" looks like. Let's see how those 4e fans deal with THAC0, level limits and 3d6 chargen shoved in their game. Now I'm off to the DC boards to once again demand that Barbara Gordon return as Batgirl.


----------



## Korgoth (May 29, 2009)

Hobo said:


> What games you decide to play may or may not be driven by nostalgia, the the Old School Revival movement certainly is.  Otherwise, there's no explanation for how retro-clones of OD&D, BD&D and 1e AD&D can all be lumped into the same movement, when they don't really have much in common other than their year of publication.  They had different goals, and different methodology and a pretty different approach.




False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 29, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.




"having more in common with each other" =/= same methodology and similar approach.  It just means they look alike from a certain angle.


----------



## Desdichado (May 29, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.



No, my statement is factually correct, and is in fact backed up by the "behind the scenes" statements by Gary Gygax himself (for whatever that's worth.)

Sorry, but that blanket dismissal isn't going to be in the least convincing.  AD&D 1e and 3e had more in common in methodology than either does to OD&D or BD&D.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 29, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.



As someone who started with BD&D, went to AD&D (1e), skipped 2e and played a bunch of other stuff (which I still do), also skipped 3.0 (because of extreme scepticism), then took up 3.5 days after that revision was released. . .

I agree, completely. FWIW, acronym soup, blah.


----------



## Desdichado (May 29, 2009)

Although I should caveat that with the observation that the design philosophy that AD&D should cover anything that came up in game was executed by simply grafting in subsystems as Gary thought of them.  This resulted, of course, in the situation that you are all describing whereas under the hood all three games are very similar, and AD&D rules can be added or ignored as desired as kinda modular add-ons.

Doesn't change the fact, however, that the design philosophy as spelled out by the designer was much more in common with the design philosophy of 3e than it was of OD&D and BD&D, and that it's very noticeable in a read through of the rules.  Ironically, you could make a very good case that what Gary _should_ have done from the get-go with AD&D was start more from the ground up, which may well have led to an AD&D that was more like 3e under the hood than what it actually was.

But that's all speculation.


----------



## Remathilis (May 29, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.




Depends on what you mean by both "mechanics" and "methodology" 

For example: Take alignment. Classic OD&D had three (Chaos, Law, Neutrality) which continued through all iterations of the Basic game. The Holmes "Blue Cover" book had five alignments (CG, LG, N, CE, LE) which closely mimic the spirit of the five alignments in 4e. It was AD&D (1e, 2e) and third edition that had the classic nine (LG, NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, NE, CE). 

By the "mechanics and methodology" of alignment, the games that "beget" others follow.

OD&D -> B/X -> BECMI -> Rules Cyclopedia
Holmes -> Fourth Edition
AD&D 1e -> 2e -> 3e -> 3.5

See how easy it is to lump games together when you define the criteria? 

I could, also, use ability score mods, lumping the ones that give a simple bonus vs. those who have complex multiple bonuses (which would lump OD&D, Basic, 3e and 4e together while excluding AD&D). Or which editions allowed multi-classing (all but Basic & OD&D). Or editions where Fireball is a d6/level (all but fourth). Need I go on?

See, Old school players need to define a criteria that allows OD&D, B/X, Holmes and AD&D to be "old school" while ignoring or revoking BECMI, 2e, 3e, and 4e from the mix. So far, that criteria is "games made before 1985". 

Unless you can point me to more...


----------



## Nikosandros (May 29, 2009)

I've never excluded 2e and BECMI. IMO, they are fully part of the same family. It's 3e that's a different beast. And before I get slammed with an accusation of extreme grognardism, I've played 3e intensely for over 7 years and while I'm not playing it at the moment (busy with AD&D and 4e at the moment) I'd like to play it some more, especially after Pathfinder will come out.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 29, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.



Oh, come now. Saying D&D was first published in 1858 would be factually incorrect. Statements about whether one edition is more like another are a different kettle of kuo-toa, they're much more subjective.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 29, 2009)

Is Monty Haul-ism old school? I'd say it is. We can't just look at the good stuff from the past and ignore the bad.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 1, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> That essay is not without context; it is a response to "dismissals of the old school movement".
> 
> Dismissal is not recognition of validity. It is not, "Well, I prefer the latest products from White Wolf and Wizards, but you prefer an older style, and that's okay because different people like different things."
> 
> ...





This is pretty much exactly what I gathered James was saying in his blog.  I also rather get the impression that quite a few people (perhaps willingly?) simply didn't "get it".


RC


----------



## rexartur (Jun 1, 2009)

*late to the party*

"Howard Johnson is right" - Blazing Saddles

Sorry, I know I'm not contributing to the topic but I felt this most sensible and post deserved to be requoted in full.

Have fun and laugh at yourself at least a little.  If you're not, someone else is.
And always appreciate that we have are so privileged to be debating, playing or contemplating what we do with our leisure time.

Peace



Treebore said:


> I don't worry about it. Thats for the individuals to discover.
> 
> I think of it in terms of the time worn phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink". This is because in order for anyone to try C&C, or any other "old school" iteration, is for them to get to a point where they are thirsty for what it has to offer in the first place.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 1, 2009)

Well, "just nostalgia" is really code for "objectively wrong".

After all, if the choice of an older game is accepted as a matter of personal preference, then that's reciprocal. There's really no point in calling it "just nostalgia" because the motive for choosing 4E is also "just" something. "They _like other games better_" suffices, followed by "to each his own".

The "same feel, and that's all that matters" claim doesn't even admit that; it gives no warrant for the "refuse to play pre-4E" bunch, no sales pitch for the (costly) switch.

The full line is really "just nostalgia, because _otherwise they would make the right choice_."

There are clear differences, and they are *products of design, to meet goals of design*. If 3E or 4E is to be bruited as better, then it must be demonstrated either as more effectively attaining the same objectives -- or as having _better_ objectives.

The latter is the prime argument of the dismissers, and it is really nothing more than personal preference. They try to make "factual" claims (often treating the word "fun" as if it's not subjective), but all they really have themselves is "just a feeling".

It is simply reaching too far. It is opinion elevated to the status of "fact", bigotry that cannot stand rational examination.

Unfortunately, _every_ valuation comes down ultimately to a fundamental "just because" that people either share or do not. That holds even for the most important of all, the moral values.

When *aesthetics* effectively become moral values, we're really in trouble.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 1, 2009)

Ariosto, I would give you more XP, but I cannot at this time.


----------



## Azgulor (Jun 1, 2009)

I covered you RC!  Too bad I couldn't give out 2 XP so Ariosto would get the XP he deserved.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Well, "just nostalgia" is really code for "objectively wrong".



No.  It isn't.

My love of 80s hair band rock and roll is primarily based on "just nostalgia."  I don't care.  I'll still put my Journey and Def Leppard and Ratt and whatever else in the CD player and crank it up.

It's not wrong to like that kind of music.  It's not wrong to like older games.  Quit running around with a massive chip on your shoulder looking to find offense, if you think saying that liking OD&D because of nostalgia is equivalent to saying, "you're wrong; the games actually suck and the only reason you could _possibly_ like them is because _you_ suck too."  All that they're saying (well, possibly; I don't mean to speak for everyone who makes that claim) is that nostalgia is a big factor in the old school renaissance.  That isn't a pejorative.  It's just an observation and/or an opinion.

I still maintain that any movement that can encompass several games that clearly were going in different directions, for different reasons, and which had different design goals and paramaters, _must_ be based on nostalgia, because the only true link between all of them is publication date. 

Also; if you're trying to equate someone's taste in D&D edition to moral values, then you've officially wandered off the reservation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 1, 2009)

Hobo said:


> No.  It isn't.





Sure it is.

The direct corollary would be "They just like 4e because it's the flavour of the month".

Some differences:

(1)  When you claim that your love of 80s hair band rock and roll is primarily based on "just nostalgia", you are in a position to know.  However, you are not in a position to know related to anyone else's love of anything.

(2)  Likewise, when you make the claim about yourself, you are engaging in (at worst) mild self-criticism.  Often, saying a thing about yourself, or levelling the same words against someone else, are different things.

(3)  There is a difference between a claim that something is *primarily* based on "just nostalgia" and that something is "just nostalgia", in degree if not in kind.

(4)  The entire "just nostalgia" claim would require that no one new to the hobby finds older games more appealing, and this is demonstrably untrue.

Depending upon you, your group, and your gaming requirements, older versions of the game may indeed provide better play experience than newer versions.  Or vice versa.  

And it is not due to "just nostalgia" -- in both cases it is due to differences in rules and presentation.


RC


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Depending upon you, your group, and your gaming requirements, older versions of the game may indeed provide better play experience than newer versions.  Or vice versa.
> 
> And it is not due to "just nostalgia" -- in both cases it is due to differences in rules and presentation.




Here is the "chicken or egg" problem...

If (by way of time machine) you were introduced to fourth edition first, THEN 20 years later found OD&D (or B/X, or 1e), would you still believe the older game creates a better play experience?

Its a trick question; you can't know. Your perception of both games are grounded in the time you encountered both games. You learned to play that older version first; it has positive connotations to you. Its what D&D "feels like" to you. If OD&D had power suites and dragonborn, a lot of people would have fond feelings for THAT.

Like Josh and his 80's metal, part of his affection for it IS nostalgia. It feels good to him. He may like modern acts too, but that 80's metal has the right mix of tempo, base, chords, and hopelessly teased hair to make him want to listen to it. If a modern band started producing an 80's metal sound (I'm sure there's one somewhere) and it got big radio play, Josh might like that too since it fits his preferred musical taste, but make no mistake nostalgia plays a role in it.

The corollary to "Old School gaming is nostalgia" isn't "4e is flavor of the month", its "The game evolved into something else, and I don't like it". Just like hair metal spun out and became Rap-Metal, Goth Metal and Norwegian Nu Metal, D&D has changed. Those who shake their fists at D&D and talk about how its changed are really no different than those who hear the latest Fall Out Boy song and immediately channel surf to find some Bon Jovi. That's fine.

What irks some people is the eventual mindset of "If I don't like it, it must be bad." This is where some people take the logical leap off the cliff and begin the bashing of how X ruined the game and (worse) should fail. Just like those old school Sex Pistols fans who bemoan how Green Day ruined Punk, it leads to an "us vs. them" mentality and we set up camps and trenches. 

So just to review.

1.) Green Day didn't ruin punk, Dragonborn didn't ruin D&D.
2.) Like what you like, but don't assume your opinions matter on the internet. 
3.) There are many reasons to like 80's hair metal, nostalgia is one of them. It might not be the ONLY reason, but its there none-the-less. If you'd have heard Fall Out Boy before hearing Motley Crue, you'd clamor for the old days of FOB too. 
4.) Music and D&D have a lot more in common than I'd ever given previous thought too.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 1, 2009)

I raised the comparison to moral values because when "the end justifies the means", the end typically is a moral imperative.

It appears to me that the rationale for insisting on telling people (or saying of them) that their views are "just nostalgia" is of that kind. It is the sort of propaganda employed in politics when it is considered that victory for Our Side is more important than any respect for inconvenient facts. Don't let the facts get a hearing! Drown them out with appeals to emotion; dismiss the message by attacking the messenger.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 1, 2009)

> 1.) Green Day didn't ruin punk, Dragonborn didn't ruin D&D.



Those are opinions.


> 2.) Like what you like, but don't assume your opinions matter on the internet.



 Better yet, don't try to present your opinions as facts anywhere. Go ahead and observe that a reversion to an older approach would ruin the game for you, if that's your opinion; you're entitled to it. You're also entitled to *speak for yourself as to why* that would be, not to have your self-knowledge dismissed. When you address design elements and consequences that are objectively different, those remain facts regardless of whether one likes them or not. It is not necessary to like eating oysters to accept an account of the mollusks' anatomy, common means of preparation, and appreciated gastronomical properties among those who prefer them to clams and abalone.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is pretty much exactly what I gathered James was saying in his blog.  I also rather get the impression that quite a few people (perhaps willingly?) simply didn't "get it".



I don't believe it matters, if they are attempting dismissing older games or not.  Several things have changed: the definition of roleplaying used by the hobby, and, therefore, the categorization of what counts as a RPG, the philosophy of what roleplaying is and its' objective, and what qualifies as good game design because of those two alterations, and, ultimately, the gameplay itself.  Old school games (I include almost all of the 4000 pre-millennial games here) are fundamentally different games and in a different category of "game" than most games designed in the last five years. 

In truth, I believe most game designers have wholesale left the hobby as it was for its' first 30+ years because of a widespread belief that those games simply cannot compete against online, computer simulation MMORPGs.   For me, to think their design isn't moneymaking is to believe MMORPGs don't make money.  It's a hugely successful design and design philosophy.  Hoiwever, that the belief our hobby needs to differentiate to survive, and to diverge in a way computer simulations cannot follow, makes a certain sense.  And probably makes more sense to particular individuals the more one's paycheck relies upon selling roleplaying games.



Hobo said:


> No.  It isn't.
> 
> My love of 80s hair band rock and roll is primarily based on "just nostalgia."  I don't care.  I'll still put my Journey and Def Leppard and Ratt and whatever else in the CD player and crank it up.
> 
> It's not wrong to like that kind of music.  It's not wrong to like older games.  Quit running around with a massive chip on your shoulder looking to find offense, if you think saying that liking OD&D because of nostalgia is equivalent to saying, "you're wrong; the games actually suck and the only reason you could _possibly_ like them is because _you_ suck too."  All that they're saying (well, possibly; I don't mean to speak for everyone who makes that claim) is that nostalgia is a big factor in the old school renaissance.  That isn't a pejorative.  It's just an observation and/or an opinion.



I believe Hobo's right above.  No "old school" movement could exist (in any hobby), if there weren't fond memories of the time to bring people back together.  It's not like being a classic rock fan means the Beatles (OD&D) are musically inferior to new musical forms of today (non-old school games).



Remathilis said:


> Here is the "chicken or egg" problem...
> 
> If (by way of time machine) you were introduced to fourth edition first, THEN 20 years later found OD&D (or B/X, or 1e), would you still believe the older game creates a better play experience?



I played 3.0 for about 100 hours.  Then 3.5 for about 200 more.  Since 2004 I've played well over 300+ hours of OD&D and 3E doesn't hold a candle to it in my opinion.  There is no "first love" fallacy for me in this regard.  4E took far less time to play and read to ascertain it wasn't remotely similar in play to either game.  Not bad, just different.  And not nearly as fun for me personally to play.  (though it did bring back some old school game design conceptions, which is pretty cool.)


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I raised the comparison to moral values because when "the end justifies the means", the end typically is a moral imperative.
> 
> It appears to me that the rationale for insisting on telling people (or saying of them) that their views are "just nostalgia" is of that kind. It is the sort of propaganda employed in politics when it is considered that victory for Our Side is more important than any respect for inconvenient facts. Don't let the facts get a hearing! Drown them out with appeals to emotion; dismiss the message by attacking the messenger.




Saying "it´s just nostalgia" is a personal attack now? Who would have known. Well, i like my nostalgia, oysters nonwithstanding.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2009)

> Well, i like my nostalgia, oysters nonwithstanding.



That's just because you're German; otherwise, you could not possibly like your nostalgia!


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> That's just because you're German; otherwise, you could not possibly like your nostalgia!




You know, i think you´ve hit a spot there. I´m constantly searching for an answer why there isn´t a retro-movement comparable to the D&D-one in Germany. I could jump to a couple of conclusions, but it leaves me baffled.

Anyway, is this the right spot to pimp my "Lets Read" thread over at RPG.net, wherein i read The Dark Eye, first Edition, 1984 (or oTDE, if you like)?


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 2, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I raised the comparison to moral values because when "the end justifies the means", the end typically is a moral imperative.
> 
> It appears to me that the rationale for insisting on telling people (or saying of them) that their views are "just nostalgia" is of that kind. It is the sort of propaganda employed in politics when it is considered that victory for Our Side is more important than any respect for inconvenient facts. Don't let the facts get a hearing! Drown them out with appeals to emotion; dismiss the message by attacking the messenger.




You have yet to show any "facts" towards any of your conclusions in this post, and are in your way, by comparing a straw-man's dismissal of "old school" gaming to Machiavellian politics, committing the same appeal to emotion that you accuse others of doing.

Hobo and others have stated the _fact_ that there has yet to be a solid, justified metric for the extant grouping of "old school gaming" as anything other than having been printed before 1985.  In response, you accuse them of clouding the water and making aspersions that simply haven't occurred.  

The Old School Revival is a aspect of a culture- there exists a cohort, "grognards" that share information and philosophy enough that an interested player/designer/game-master can quickly find and sift through many schools of thought and arrive at their own conclusion.  This has more to do with the growth of Web 2.0 and the "blogosphere" than a rebirth of ancient Role-Playing tropes in a new audience.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> That's just because you're German; otherwise, you could not possibly like your nostalgia!



I am not convinced that nostalgia is strong in us Germans...

Though... Neue Deutsche Welle FTW. 



Spoiler



(But I like the new German bands, too...)


----------



## rounser (Jun 2, 2009)

> This has more to do with the growth of Web 2.0 and the "blogosphere" than a rebirth of ancient Role-Playing tropes in a new audience.



No-one was claiming the audience was new.  Of course it isn't, there's no marketing to push older editions and clones and they aren't even on shelves at stores.  WOTC holds nearly all the cards here, except for word-of-mouth and grognards directly introducing new players to their games.

I suspect that the timing of the boom in oldskool revival has everything to do with a backlash against 4E and an unwillingness to return to 3E.  What does that leave?  Old editions and derivatives thereof, because 5E happens not to exist yet.  It seems conspicuous to me that you don't mention this elephant in the room.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2009)

Evidence concerning the art of propaganda and how it is used is amply available. I laid out logical fallacies in the line of dismissal in previous posts.

It is beside the point whether Hobo considers the common ground others find with each other to have a "solid, justified metric". The solidity or justification is a matter of opinion, and it is the opinion of those who choose to form such a relationship that counts. Should it be up to outsiders to determine whether the association of players of different games here at ENworld is "justified"?


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 2, 2009)

rounser said:


> I suspect that the timing of the boom in oldskool revival has everything to do with a backlash against 4E and an unwillingness to return to 3E.  What does that leave?  Old editions and derivatives thereof, because 5E happens not to exist yet.  It seems conspicuous to me that you don't mention this elephant in the room.




Why would I have to mention it?  I don't care nor find necessary to relate how people compare "oldskool" to Piazo/4E games in reference to this argument.  Neither you nor I can show exactly what causes someone to access this "Grognard" culture, and any attempts to tie one factor (Web 2.0 and Blogosphere) to another (the release of 4E) is begging the question, _cum hoc ergo propter hoc, _or simply someone attempting to flame the fires of an edition war that doesn't (yet) exist.

People can come to want to play certain "oldskool games" because of a hate for Hasbro subsidaries, a need to find players in their area, or a desire to find one element of a game that they haven't found in other publications.  None of which actually shows that "oldskool gaming" is anything but a tightly-connected subculture diseminating information amongst themselves in a public forum.  People that don't want to play the current edition could have "really wanted" to play Traveller, GURPS, or White Wolf, but couldn't find the proper information or advertisements for it, and instead found that OD&D had an active representation and attached themselves to it.  

"Oldskool" is an advertising cohort, nothing less, nothing more.  Yes, 4E is different from those games in some ways and similar in others, and we could dicker over the number and quality of those differences forever.  But just because WotC released an edition doesn't mean that the old school revival benifited.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2009)

As to "anything other than having been printed before 1985": I guess you're not aware of how much "old school" material has been published just since 2005.


----------



## rounser (Jun 2, 2009)

> But just because WotC released an edition doesn't mean that the old school revival benifited.



Why not?  The timing is an extraordinary coincidence if they're not actually connected.  There's certainly enough potentially objectionable material in 4E to trigger such a backlash in existing fans of D&D.


> Why would I have to mention it?



Because you're weighing in on a side of the argument suggesting that blogs and nostalgia are the reason for the resurgence.  I'm just pointing out, as I said, the elephant in the room with respect to such claims.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Here is the "chicken or egg" problem...
> 
> If (by way of time machine) you were introduced to fourth edition first, THEN 20 years later found OD&D (or B/X, or 1e), would you still believe the older game creates a better play experience?




While it may be true that you can't know, it is also true that you can sure as heck make a reasonably rational conjecture, which is what your post seems to be attempting to deny.

If you cared to examine my own "fusion" game (RCFG), I think you would note that there are some things I very much like about WotC-D&D games, as well as some things that I believe they do exceedingly poorly.

IMHO, speed of play is essential to good play experience, and all complaints about 3e (including those trotted out by WotC when they wanted to sell you on 4e) boil down to the game being too slow to play.

If Game A has an average of 4 encounters per gaming session, and Game B has an average of 16, average players of Game A will be more leery about engaging encounters unless they can see the obvious benefit, whereas average players of Game B can and will choose to interact with encounters just to see where they will go.

Players in Game A look for the set pieces; they have too, they only have time to deal with a very limited set of encounters.  Players in Game B are more willing to explore.

IMHO, 4e screws this aspect of the game as badly (or worse) than 3e, although there are otherwise many good ideas in the system.  

Which is why, even on forums dedicated to Old School gaming, you never see posts asking how to speed up the game, but the same comes up repeatedly on forums discussing WotC-D&D.

That's not nostalgia; that's a real difference in play experience.



> The corollary to "Old School gaming is nostalgia" isn't "4e is flavor of the month", its "The game evolved into something else, and I don't like it".




Keep telling yourself that.  

The corollary to "The game evolved into something else, and I don't like it" _*isn't*_ "Old School gaming is nostalgia" but rather "The game evolved from something else, and I don't like it".

If you change the base nature of the statement, it isn't a corollary.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't think the number of encounters per game is relevant. What is relevant is that _stuff happens_. It needs to be exciting, not tedious or repetitive. This also hold trues if you run 16 encounters. If they all play the same, there is no benefit. You need something to make the stuff you do interesting. Whether it is because of the intracities of the mechanics or of the cool plot woven into the encounters doesn't really matter. But of course, the game rules can't give you the cool plot, so most game designers will make the "interesting" stuff into the rules.


----------



## rounser (Jun 2, 2009)

> That's not nostalgia; that's a real difference in play experience.



Indeed - you simply can't practically run certain kinds of campaign if every combat runs to 3/4 of an hour or more.

There are also numerous aesthetic and stylistic differences, from the emphasis on purple prose to the "pose for the camera" choices in art direction through to the content of the implied setting, plus big ones like the elevated level of abstraction, the arguably now unmagical magic etc.

Even something as simple as being more or less dependent on miniatures by default (4E and 3E) or easily playable without them entirely (AD&D and BECMI) can be a dealbreaker.  I mean, that's a heck of a lot of cost sunk into buying miniatures right there if you choose a miniatures dependent D&D and don't use proxies.  You can definitely quantify that difference - in dollars, and time spent moving miniatures and making battle maps.

I think 4E caused many D&D fans to reassess what they wanted from the game, and react accordingly.  When presented with an edition disconnected from those "wants", it becomes easier to assess what earlier editions had to offer in a whole new light.  That's a rational thing to do under the circumstances, and cannot be dismissed as mere nostalgia.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Which is why, even on forums dedicated to Old School gaming, you never see posts asking how to speed up the game, but the same comes up repeatedly on forums discussing WotC-D&D.
> 
> That's not nostalgia; that's a real difference in play experience.



this.post = qft + xp;

Uh, or it would if that annoying message hadn't come up (you must [blah blah. . .] ). . .


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Like Josh and his 80's metal, part of his affection for it IS nostalgia. It feels good to him. He may like modern acts too, but that 80's metal has the right mix of tempo, base, chords, and hopelessly teased hair to make him want to listen to it.



Don't forget the tiger-print spandex pants!


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2009)

rounser said:


> Why not?  The timing is an extraordinary coincidence if they're not actually connected.  There's certainly enough potentially objectionable material in 4E to trigger such a backlash in existing fans of D&D.



The timing is a coincidence, and not a particular extraordinary one.  The old school revival was precipitated by OSRIC.  When P&P, or Non Serviam, or whatever username he uses 'round here put OSRIC out, went through whatever legal discussions he had with WotC about OSRIC, and it became clear that he had "gotten away with it" then that opened the door for the other retro-clones, which in turn paved the way for the movement to gather the steam that it has today.

If you completely ignore the release of 4e, you'd still expect to see more or less the same timing to get from OSRIC to where the movement is today.  Hence, although I can't rule out that 4e's release may have had some impact on the old school revival, I think it was a mostly insignificant one.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> If a modern band started producing an 80's metal sound (I'm sure there's one somewhere) and it got big radio play, Josh might like that too since it fits his preferred musical taste, but make no mistake nostalgia plays a role in it.



There's one that plays at the local pub around here, mainly playing chick metal from the 80s or so (like Warlock). I don't think they get any radio play, that I know of. But they're popular. . . interestingly, with the younger crowd more than say, Gen X on up. _By far_. 

Seems that the sound, and the show, just appeal. Can't really be nostalgia, because these young whippersnappers weren't even around. Or wouldn't have been very aware, at best.

Um, just another random anecdote for the heck of it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 2, 2009)

rounser said:


> I suspect that the timing of the boom in oldskool revival has everything to do with a *backlash against 4E* and an unwillingness to return to 3E.



I don't think so, all the major old school revival games were published before 4e was announced in August 2007.

HackMaster - 2001
Castles & Crusades - 2004
OSRIC - 2006
Basic Fantasy Roleplaying - Feb 2007
Labyrinth Lord - July 2007

Both old school and 4e may derive from the same motivation - people were tired of 3e and wanted to go in a new direction. 4e's direction is somewhat different than that of the old school but both recognise the desire for a less complex rule set.

Shortly before 4e was announced I saw a few people asking for a Fiendish Codex covering Yugoloths. That to my mind demonstrates 3e had nowhere left to go.


----------



## rounser (Jun 2, 2009)

> Hence, although I can't rule out that 4e's release may have had some impact on the old school revival, I think it was a mostly insignificant one.



If 4E split the fanbase as much as it appears to have, I'm not sure that an insignificant impact even seems possible, let alone likely.  Those people turned off by 4E clearly aren't all still playing 3E, and they surely they haven't _all_ given up on D&D for the foreseeable future just because 4E exists, either.  But we're speculating on "what seems likely", here, and so will not agree.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I don't think so, all the major old school revival games were published before 4e was announced in August 2007.
> 
> HackMaster - 2001
> Castles & Crusades - 2004
> ...



Facts? How needs facts? 

I don't know what might have been the specific reasons, but hey, here are some things that I think might make sense.
3.x was not moving in the direction of "old school". In fact I think _no games_ moved into that direction. There is obviously a market niche left open there. 
People realized what was possible with the OGL and similar approaches. (Maybe the various "Variant Player Handbooks" like Arcana Unearthed or Iron Heroes tipped them off?)


----------



## rounser (Jun 2, 2009)

> I don't think so, all the major old school revival games were published before 4e was announced in August 2007.



I don't think the boom refers to the publishing date of these games, but rather the surge of interest in them.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2009)

rounser said:


> I don't think the boom refers to the publishing date of these games, but rather the surge of interest in them.



OK, but surely you admit that they had to be published first and gather some steam naturally, right?

Also: prior to the 4e announcement, that same general "sphere" had a fair bit of a surge in interest thanks to _Castles & Crusades_.  Which, in turn, was old school feeling without actually being completely old school.  I think C&C actually helped _create_ the surge in interest, because it got people thinking to "well, if this is fun, why not just play the actual old editions instead of this hybrid 3e/old school game?  Then OSRIC came along, then the other retro-clones, and the rest, as they say, was history.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Here is the "chicken or egg" problem...
> 
> If (by way of time machine) you were introduced to fourth edition first, THEN 20 years later found OD&D (or B/X, or 1e), would you still believe the older game creates a better play experience?
> 
> Its a trick question; you can't know. Your perception of both games are grounded in the time you encountered both games.




This reminds me of a discussion I had with my group about RA Salvatores dark elf series.  My friend never read it and I told him to read _Crystal Shard_ first, then go on to _Homeland_ etc.  Another member of the group, who was around my age called me daft and that the proper order to read them was _Homeland_ etc, then_ crystal shard_ etc., and so on.  I read every book of RA salvatore's series on first release including _Crystal Shard_.  For me Drizzt was a mysterious character at first.  For my friend, by _Crystal Shard_ Drizzt was well known.  I still think that my order is best, but there is no way to know other than preference.

This is the same as the Star Wars series.  I could not imagine Empire Strikes Back being as great as it was knowing the history of the new three movies.  Most 'old school' SW fans think the order the movies should be watched is IV,V,VI then I, II, III.  Most kids view then in numerical order, and even George Lucas says they should be viewed in that order (though if he was really true to his "I wrote Star Wars" as an epic he would not say that, as epics typically start at a point in a legend's established history).

There is no correct answer, though I think there is a better case to be made for the order of viewing Star Wars starting with IV.  But many kids viewed episode I in their younger years, just like I watched Star Wars IV in the theatre when I was 5 years old.



Remathilis said:


> You learned to play that older version first; it has positive connotations to you. Its what D&D "feels like" to you. If OD&D had power suites and dragonborn, a lot of people would have fond feelings for THAT.




I can mostly agree, but I have never been a fan of playing monsters.  Draconians to me were not a good replacement for orcs.  I started Warhammer very early on, and I still find Zoats to be lame and best ignored.  Very early on, I still would of never let anyone play a Draconian.



Remathilis said:


> Like Josh and his 80's metal, part of his affection for it IS nostalgia. It feels good to him. He may like modern acts too, but that 80's metal has the right mix of tempo, base, chords, and hopelessly teased hair to make him want to listen to it. If a modern band started producing an 80's metal sound (I'm sure there's one somewhere) and it got big radio play, Josh might like that too since it fits his preferred musical taste, but make no mistake nostalgia plays a role in it.




I like most 80's metal.  The metal I identify with most is Iron Maiden and Dio and Metallica, bands that had a strong fantasy theme.  I don't like a lot of new metal because of subject matter mostly.  But then I was a huge AC/DC fan so I guess that argument is blown out of the water...

But I look back at other bands I liked and suddenly I get embarassed.  Like if I wore an old POISON shirt and some dude came up to me and said POISON SUCKS!, I would probably look at him, look at my shirt, and then say "you know your right."  They did suck.  But I loved them.

I think the new metal is pretty cool.  But I can't abide any metal that throws rap in the mix.  Too many new metal bands include it and then that throws me off.  I just can't handle rap in any form.  I knew as an angsty teen ager FAITH NO MORE would lead to bad things



Remathilis said:


> The corollary to "Old School gaming is nostalgia" isn't "4e is flavor of the month", its "The game evolved into something else, and I don't like it". Just like hair metal spun out and became Rap-Metal, Goth Metal and Norwegian Nu Metal, D&D has changed. Those who shake their fists at D&D and talk about how its changed are really no different than those who hear the latest Fall Out Boy song and immediately channel surf to find some Bon Jovi. That's fine.
> 
> What irks some people is the eventual mindset of "If I don't like it, it must be bad." This is where some people take the logical leap off the cliff and begin the bashing of how X ruined the game and (worse) should fail. Just like those old school Sex Pistols fans who bemoan how Green Day ruined Punk, it leads to an "us vs. them" mentality and we set up camps and trenches.
> 
> ...



Here I pretty much agree.  except for one thing...

new metal is all over the radio, and concert circuits.  That is fine.  But I can still go see Iron Maiden with the seating packed.

with 4e flying on to the scene, I had support for a good game stopped.  I can't get new 3rd edition books (not addressing pathfinder right now, just the concept).  With music I can go to a concert of the old bands often with new albums.  3rd edition I cannot get any new books.

This is the difference.  4e is the evolution, but WOTC was trying to force everyone into their new paradigm.  

So for people that liked older D&D, it did fail.  If it does fail as a product, or evolve ultimately into an electronic game, no big deal.

I can still see Iron Maiden and Metallica sell out arenas, 80's metal is alive and well.  the market change to 4e is more akin to the record companies destroying all of their master recordings and telling the public only new metal or rap metal is good.


----------



## rounser (Jun 2, 2009)

> OK, but surely you admit that they had to be published first and gather some steam naturally, right?



Not really, because that only addresses retroclones, and earlier editions of D&D are part of the resurgence as well, and it doesn't explain that.

Were retroclones all created in response to 4E?  No.
Did the advent of 4E affect the level of interest in retroclones and earlier editions to a large degree?  Almost certainly.  It appears to have shovelled coal directly into their furnaces.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 2, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Here I pretty much agree.  except for one thing...
> 
> new metal is all over the radio, and concert circuits.  That is fine.  But I can still go see Iron Maiden with the seating packed.
> 
> ...



But this is just a limitation of the analogy. In music, there are many, many bands you can listen to. In RPGs, there are very few publishers of note. And there are resource allocation issues that don't arise in music.

WotC was no more trying to "force" everyone into their paradigm than a band is trying to "force" their fans into a new paradigm when they release a new album with a new sound. But the band can still play their old stuff in concerts because it doesn't cost them anything. Maintaining support for old editions would cost WotC resources. It's not the same deal.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 2, 2009)

rounser said:


> I suspect that the timing of the boom in oldskool revival has everything to do with a backlash against 4E and an unwillingness to return to 3E.  What does that leave?  Old editions and derivatives thereof, because 5E happens not to exist yet.  It seems conspicuous to me that you don't mention this elephant in the room.




As Doug pointed out, one needs only look at Dragonsfoot and other OS boards to see the problem doesn't begin in 4e, but 3e.

For example, TLG wanted to make an RPG with "AD&D sensibilities" for Gygax's pet project Castle Grey... Zygag. This was a reaction to the concept that 3e wasn't "true enough" to AD&D's roots to recreate Gygax's vision and thus needed ruleset that mimicked the old game (if he could have gained the rights to publish the thing in 1e, he'd probably have done that instead). 
Not long after, OSRIC 1.0 came out as a tool to produce new AD&D 1e material. Both of these (and slowly the other clones, as well as interest in the originals) gained steam and (to agree with you, came to a head in) the 4e changeover.

Let me repeat my point though: "This was a reaction to the concept that 3e wasn't 'true enough' to AD&D's roots". The reaction was against 3e's methodology; while some ideas from 3e were kept (no level limits, upwards AC) much of the retro movement railed against open multi-classing, prestige classes, feats, "boxed in skill sets", over-complex monsters, bonus stacking, Level adjustments, "balanced" encounters, magic Wal-Marts, and a dozen specific changes to my favorite race/class/spell/magic item. 

Instead, they wanted games that used the elements of the game they're familiar with, back when multi-classing was constrained, bard was the only PrC, skills were DM fiat, monster stats fit on a text line, bonuses stacked but there were few to go around, encounters were whatever the DM deemed them to be, magic couldn't be bought, and elves were elves, rangers had 2 HD to start, fireball killed whole cities, and you couldn't make or buy a wand of fireballs. If that's not nostalgia...

(Ironically, 4e fixes many of the same complaints, but in a completely reverse manner.)

Don't delude yourself that you can wave a bloody shirt and say "4e did this" when 3e was well on its way to disgruntling the grognards long before 4e hit the scene. 4e only served to speed up the process. Remember, you said it yourself...



rounser said:


> I suspect that the timing of the boom in oldskool revival has everything to do with a backlash against 4E *and an unwillingness to return to 3E.*


----------



## Clavis (Jun 2, 2009)

I have a somewhat unique gaming situation at the moment, one that I think provides a certain perspective on the Old-School versus New-School debate.

 Right now at my FLGS we have a large group (7-10 players per session) that alternates between 4th Edition and Classic D&D (Rules Cyclopedia version). Both games are "open', in that we allow new players who want to join to simply show up and start playing. (All games in my past experience had been "closed", consisting only of people who already knew each other and played at our homes). The group was originally a 4th Edition group, created because my Castles & Crusades campaign had to go on hiatus (our gaming space became unavailable), and one of the players had bought the 4th Edition books.  A new game shop had fortuitously opened, so 3 of us decided to try out 4th Edition there. That group soon acquired more players, and eventually I asked everyone if they would like to try playing Classic, so they could experience what the game was originally like.

 The first session of Classic D&D was a great success, and to my surprise younger players loved the game. The Classic game was intended to be an occasional thing, but the players insisted that it become a regular campaign. So here's the thing. Now we alternate between the 4th Edition campaign and the Classic campaign. The two campaigns mostly share players, although there are some players who will only play one or the other. The funny thing is, *there is no correlation between a player's age and what edition they prefer*. I had thought that nobody under 30 could possibly care about Classic D&D. I was very wrong. There are players in the game who are too young to have any nostalgia for Classic, who learned to play both 4th Edition and Classic at the same time, and who prefer the older game. Conversely, I have encountered older players who love 4th. The preference for older editions is not simply nostalgia, nor is a preference for 4th simply the influence of growing up with video games and manga.

 Played side-by-side (and especially teaching both games to the same players), the differences between the two editions are glaring. They are not the same game at all, but both are enjoyable. In many ways, they complement each other. 4th is a essentially a tactical combat game, with a plot that links combat encounters. The game is the combats, and combats are far more interesting than in other editions. They also take much longer, so long that trying to make the game about anything else is futile. Classic D&D, on the other hand, is a game of role-playing exploration and a PC's rise to fame and political power. That's what's in the rules, and that's what the game does best. Combat can indeed descend into a series of "I attack" statements, but 4th simply isn't as good as Classic for a role-playing and exploration-based game. Older D&D is also far more dependent on the DM's skills, but also allows a great DM to make a more enjoyable game. I will admit however, that 4th seems dramatically less dependent on the DM's skills, and Classic with a bad DM could be a horrible experience.

 In my experience, the problem with the "Old School Movement" is its exclusivity. It sometimes comes off as lecturing to younger players, who naturally feel like the Grognards are devaluing things the things that the under-30 crowd genuinely enjoy. Unless the "Old School Movement" (which is really a Neo-Old School Movement) attracts younger players, it by definition has no future. I found that when the older editions are presented as simply a different way to role-play, without swipes at the newer versions, new players can and will enjoy an Old School game.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 2, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> But this is just a limitation of the analogy. In music, there are many, many bands you can listen to. In RPGs, there are very few publishers of note. And there are resource allocation issues that don't arise in music.
> 
> WotC was no more trying to "force" everyone into their paradigm than a band is trying to "force" their fans into a new paradigm when they release a new album with a new sound. But the band can still play their old stuff in concerts because it doesn't cost them anything. Maintaining support for old editions would cost WotC resources. It's not the same deal.




I can agree with your post but that was not my point.  You are right the music industry is wide open.  A new band can make a new album and still play old singles.  WOTC cannot support both editions (though I disagree with this, I think they COULD, but I really no longer care, because PAIZO has all those good designers.)

My point, was more in response to how a group of D&D fans can actually be angry about the direction and play style of a new edition.  It is not a simple solution of "play what you like" when the game you like has been replaced with something you consider completely different.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2009)

Liking (or not) older RPGs is not the whole of the Old School Revival, so pointing out that (to use the example a couple of posts up) that younger guys like BD&D or whatever too doesn't mean that nostalgia isn't a huge part of the Old School Revival movement.  The Old School Revival blogs are often not only steeped in nostalgia in nearly every post (even as they deny nostalgia as being important to them), but some of them also have really romanticised the old days of D&D, and approach playing the game as an almost liturgical experience, where we have to think about "how would Gary Gygax have done this?  Why did Gary Gygax include this element?  What were Gary's sources here?" and try to emulate, not only old school gaming, but specifically Gary's game.

Anyway, yeah... I think it's foolish for anyone outside the movement to dismiss it as _just_ nostalgia, but I think it's equally foolish for those _inside_ the movement to deny that nostalgia is an important component of the surge in interest.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 2, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Liking (or not) older RPGs is not the whole of the Old School Revival, so pointing out that (to use the example a couple of posts up) that younger guys like BD&D or whatever too doesn't mean that nostalgia isn't a huge part of the Old School Revival movement.  The Old School Revival blogs are often not only steeped in nostalgia in nearly every post (even as they deny nostalgia as being important to them), but some of them also have really romanticized the old days of D&D, and approach playing the game as an almost liturgical experience, where we have to think about "how would Gary Gygax have done this?  Why did Gary Gygax include this element?  What were Gary's sources here?" and try to emulate, not only old school gaming, but specifically Gary's game.
> 
> Anyway, yeah... I think it's foolish for anyone outside the movement to dismiss it as _just_ nostalgia, but I think it's equally foolish for those _inside_ the movement to deny that nostalgia is an important component of the surge in interest.




Have some XP!

I think there is a not-discussed element to the OSR; retrospective. Since Gary's death last year (and Dave's this year), there has been renewed interest in their works (not unlike a few years back when Johnny Cash received a post-mortem bump in sales). While that doesn't explain those who have enjoyed his works for a long time, it does account for a small amount of interest in older versions of D&D, if for nothing else than curiosity.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 2, 2009)

Nostalgia definitely plays a part in Goodman Games marketing, the very first words of their standard module text in the Dungeon Crawl Classics series are "Remember the good old days..."

The first DCC, Idylls of the Rat King, was published in 2003, which is further evidence for the popularity of old school existing long before 4e.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 2, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Nostalgia definitely plays a part in Goodman Games marketing, the very first words of their standard module text in the Dungeon Crawl Classics series are "Remember the good old days..."
> 
> The first DCC, Idylls of the Rat King, was published in 2003, which is further evidence for the popularity of old school existing long before 4e.




Ahem.

"Third Edition Rules, First Edition feel?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

One could just as easily say,

Liking (or not) newer RPGs is not the whole of 4e sales, so pointing out that (to use the example a couple of posts up) that older guys like 4e or whatever too doesn't mean that flavour of the month isn't a huge part of the 4e movement. The 4e blogs are often not only steeped in flavour of the month in nearly every post (even as they deny flavour of the month as being important to them), but some of them also have really romanticized the new edition of D&D, and approach playing the game as an almost liturgical experience, where we have to not only avoid thinking about the play experiences of previous editions, but to actively deny Gary's game.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> One could just as easily say,
> 
> Liking (or not) newer RPGs is not the whole of 4e sales, so pointing out that (to use the example a couple of posts up) that older guys like 4e or whatever too doesn't mean that flavour of the month isn't a huge part of the 4e movement. The 4e blogs are often not only steeped in flavour of the month in nearly every post (even as they deny flavour of the month as being important to them), but some of them also have really romanticized the new edition of D&D, and approach playing the game as an almost liturgical experience, where we have to not only avoid thinking about the play experiences of previous editions, but to actively deny Gary's game.




Except they don't. 

And I think very few players would deny that "new hottness" IS an attractive element of 4e. The books are brand new. There are new elements, new ways of doing things, and new spins on classic things. We get a brand new book nearly every month, and a boatload of online stuff to boot. The rules (IMHO) improve upon earlier iterations and create a new and interesting play experience.

I don't deny that "newness" is an attraction to 4e (and 3e via Pathfinder), why do you deny "nostalgia" is in the OSR?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Nostalgia definitely plays a part in Goodman Games marketing, the very first words of their standard module text in the Dungeon Crawl Classics series are "Remember the good old days..."




Hrrrmm.

GG is definitely making an appeal to the idea that "older is better", which is a logical fallacy if that is all there is to it.  However, if one _*actually prefers*_ the "1e feel", then buying something based upon that quality is not "just nostalgia".

The entire idea that one could create products which express the qualities of older games suggests that there are objective criteria for that expression.  Indeed, Goodman Games goes on to suggest what (to them) some of those qualities are.



> The first DCC, Idylls of the Rat King, was published in 2003, which is further evidence for the popularity of old school existing long before 4e.




The popularity of old school games began, obviously, before there were any other games to compete with.  I.e., when they were the new school.   



Remathilis said:


> Ahem.
> 
> "Third Edition Rules, First Edition feel?"




See above.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> And I think very few players would deny that "new hottness" IS an attractive element of 4e.




Preordered?  You obviously couldn't know what you were getting, so equally obviously your enjoyment of 4e is nothing more than "flavour of the month"ism.

Does that seem rather dismissive?

So does "just nostalgia".

Does that seem rather simplistic, and, dare I say it, just plain wrong?

So does "just nostalgia".

No one, I think, is denying an element of nostalgia (to a greater or lesser degree).  Rather, the modifier "just" causes some serious problems.

Because if your enjoyment of 4e was just new-flavourism, then once you get playing, that new flavour would wear off and you'd be looking for something newer.  Likewise, if others' enjoyment of older games was just nostalgia, once they got to playing them they'd discover that the games themselves suck.

Since neither of those things is true, it is equally unlikely that "just new-flavourism" or "just nostalgia" is anything other than a load of unmitigated bull-hooey.


RC


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Since neither of those things is true, it is equally unlikely that "just new-flavourism" or "just nostalgia" is anything other than a load of unmitigated bull-hooey.




I see what you're getting at...

Its not the "nostalgia" part you're having a fit about, its the "just".

Ok, its not "just nostalgia", but I never said it was. I merely pointed out nostalgia colors your perception of likes and dislikes, and that's part of the human condition. It colors it in your clothing choice, your taste in music, etc. To claim nostalgia has NO role is just as disingenuous as saying its everything.

We'll have to disagree on the rest.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 2, 2009)

Clavis said:


> In my experience, the problem with the "Old School Movement" is its exclusivity. It sometimes comes off as lecturing to younger players, who naturally feel like the Grognards are devaluing things the things that the under-30 crowd genuinely enjoy. Unless the "Old School Movement" (which is really a Neo-Old School Movement) attracts younger players, it by definition has no future. I found that when the older editions are presented as simply a different way to role-play, without swipes at the newer versions, new players can and will enjoy an Old School game.




The problem I see is that many 4e (and 3e before them) players are so defensive about their edition "being D&D" that they perceive any claim that the editions play differently as some sort of attack against their edition "being D&D."  Many completely innocuous statements regarding "old school" play (as I believe James M's original blog entry was) are perceived as attacks on the new version.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Except they don't.
> 
> And I think very few players would deny that "new hottness" IS an attractive element of 4e. The books are brand new. There are new elements, new ways of doing things, and new spins on classic things. We get a brand new book nearly every month, and a boatload of online stuff to boot. The rules (IMHO) improve upon earlier iterations and create a new and interesting play experience.
> 
> I don't deny that "newness" is an attraction to 4e (and 3e via Pathfinder), why do you deny "nostalgia" is in the OSR?




It is a matter of taste more so than "just nostalgia".  Many OD&D players don't want Anime influences like Japanese Roleplaying games and Anime in their fantasy.  Many OD&D players want races based in literature and not made up arbitrarily by designers.  

A player with this preference certainly would not like 4e so they go to a different edition.  Nostalgia can quite possibly have nothing to do with it.

I love playing Oblivion.  There is no nostalgia in it.  

I TRIED to play LOST ODYSSEY because it was the new shiny, and it was just all silly story with alot of melodrama thrown in; closer to Avatar the air bender rather than good quests.  it is a matter of taste more than nostalgia.

I never liked monster races and nostalgia has nothing to do with it.  It could just be that OD&D sticks to the story elements I like.

I don't begrudge people their japanese scifi/fantasy style, I just don't want to see that be the standard.  Old D&D had the traditional elements as the core and all the other tastes could be added in and taylor made.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> For example, TLG wanted to make an RPG with "AD&D sensibilities" for Gygax's pet project Castle Grey... Zygag. This was a reaction to the concept that 3e wasn't "true enough" to AD&D's roots to recreate Gygax's vision and thus needed ruleset that mimicked the old game (if he could have gained the rights to publish the thing in 1e, he'd probably have done that instead).
> Not long after, OSRIC 1.0 came out as a tool to produce new AD&D 1e material. Both of these (and slowly the other clones, as well as interest in the originals) gained steam and (to agree with you, came to a head in) the 4e changeover.
> 
> Let me repeat my point though: "This was a reaction to the concept that 3e wasn't 'true enough' to AD&D's roots"....
> ...




For what it's worth, having talked to the guys who worked on OSRIC quite a bit, C&C's successes and failures had a lot more to do with the creation of OSRIC than the perceived strengths or weaknesses of either 3.x or 4e (which, at the time, was just the looming specter on the horizon).  

Of course neither C&C or OSRIC would have been possible without the OGL, so in that respect, both are direct reactions to the market conditions created by or for 3e.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Many OD&D players don't want Anime influences like Japanese Roleplaying games and Anime in their fantasy.



And that's fine. However, it gets dodgy when self-proclaimed 'old-schoolers' conveniently forget all the weird influences/elements found in earlier editions. Say like the monk, who is a refugee from 1970s-era Shaw Brothers kung-fu flicks. 

Which isn't to say anyone is wrong in their preferences (just wrong in some of their characterizations of the game). 



> Old D&D had the traditional elements as the core and all the other tastes could be added in and taylor made.



It's more accurate to say 'old D&D' had a combination of traditional elements and whatever other wacky shi stuff tickled its creators fancy. Which goes a long way towards explaining it's charm.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I see what you're getting at...
> 
> Its not the "nostalgia" part you're having a fit about, its the "just".




Nope.  I'm not having a fit about anything, but it's nice to see that you can still throw the odd ad hominem attack in where it isn't needed.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nope.  I'm not having a fit about anything, but it's nice to see that you can still throw the odd ad hominem attack in where it isn't needed.
> 
> 
> RC



Are you sure you aren't a little to oversensitive and seeing an insult where none is intended?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 2, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> It is a matter of taste more so than "just nostalgia".  Many OD&D players don't want Anime influences like Japanese Roleplaying games and Anime in their fantasy.  Many OD&D players want races based in literature and not made up arbitrarily by designers.



Is there any Japanese influence in the newer editions? Or is 'anime' code for non-naturalistic armour, big swords and a shocking lack of 70s moustaches in the art? Styles in fantasy art have changed, it's less naturalistic than it was 30 years ago, but that's not due to Japanese influence. I actually think there *should* be more manga and anime influences in modern D&D even though it doesn't appeal to me personally, as it's very popular these days, but afaics there isn't any.

Lots of ideas in 1970s D&D came from all over the place - comic books, TV shows, movies, sci fi, kids toys. Whatever appealed to Gary and the other early players. Much that seems traditional to us now isn't generic fantasy, it comes from very specific sources - halflings, orcs, Vancian magic, the arcane/divine split.

If the races had come from Conan instead of Tolkien, there would've been ape-men, tieflings and serpent people instead of elves, dwarves and orcs.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

As for the original blog post...

It rubbed me the wrong way. Dismissing a person's preferences as mere nostalgia is dumb. But dismissing the role, and _nature_ of nostalgia, is also dumb. Nostalgia indicates you liked something in the past, that perhaps you'd like to recapture some of feeling you had when that thing was new to you. There's nothing wrong with that. 

(and perish the thought we should discuss our 'feelings' and talk about the _games we enjoy_ using 'nebulous and quasi-emotional' language'. FYI, I'm preparing a combination legal brief and mathematical proof of why I like the recent Animal Collective album _Merriweather Post Pavilion_. Would anyone care to read it? )

Apparently it's okay to dismiss people who feel a large part of 'old-school gaming' comes from the way you _approach_ the rules, not from the rules themselves. If you encounter a bloke like that, nod and move on, as if they were muttering to themselves on a crowded street. 

This alone makes his whole analysis of old-school gaming look suspect to me. AFAIC, the core of old-school' is a reliance on DM judgment --I prefer that to more prejudicial term 'fiat'-- and player knowledge to resolve tasks/conflicts. 

The whole thing strikes me as less an answer to certain (unseen straw man) critics and more a (thinly? badly?)-veiled attempt at saying 'the games _I_ like are objectively better than yours'.



			
				James M. said:
			
		

> "If one actually believes, as I do, that games like OD&D, Tunnels & Trolls, Empire of the Petal Throne, and so forth offer something unique that no game published in the last 20 years can match."




Then again, I might be reading (a lot) into this. Like I said, the way it was written rubbed me the wrong way. Perhaps that obscured the point he was trying to make.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 2, 2009)

Check out this 'anime' from 1967:







No more Japanese influences please Mr Moorcock! I want traditional fantasy!


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Is there any Japanese influence in the newer editions?



Not really, no.



> Or is 'anime' code for non-naturalistic armour, big swords and a shocking lack of 70s moustaches in the art?



'Anime' is this context is a code for 'contemporary'. 



> Lots of ideas in 1970s D&D came from all over the place - comic books, TV shows, movies, sci fi, kids toys. Whatever appealed to Gary and the other early players.



These are the weird influences and elements that conveniently get forgotten I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 2, 2009)

I think there's room for nostalgia in the old school movement, but it's definately not the only thing under the tent.  Alot of people, including myself, never played the earliest editions (I started with 2e), and of those that did, many probably remember why they switched away from it (I certainly do).  0e and 4e are different games.  They read differently, they play differently.  Some people play 4e, some people play GURPS.  So what?  Swords & Wizardry is my current game of choice, not because of some impossible nostalgia for a game I never played, or reverence for Gary Gygax, whom I do not consider some kind of gaming god, but because it's a faster, looser, less structured game that's easier to write mechanics for.  And it has ascending AC.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 2, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Is there any Japanese influence in the newer editions? Or is 'anime' code for non-naturalistic armour, big swords and a shocking lack of 70s moustaches in the art? Styles in fantasy art have changed, it's less naturalistic than it was 30 years ago, but that's not due to Japanese influence. I actually think there *should* be more manga and anime influences in modern D&D even though it doesn't appeal to me personally, as it's very popular these days, but afaics there isn't any.




The DM's guide specifically mentions the Avatar nickolodean show. I think the power system and the art to a large extent is influenced by anime. Granted Warhammer art is even sillier with their uber, impossible to wield weapons. I have a problem with unlikely armour and over large weapons becoming the norm. This was actually one of my biggest criticisms to third edition and BALDUR's GATE 2. I found the art *conceptually *ridiculous starting with 3rd edition. Great art to be sure (as far as *quality*), but anachronistic, cartoony, and unlikely. The art is very much Anime inspired. 



Doug McCrae said:


> Lots of ideas in 1970s D&D came from all over the place - comic books, TV shows, movies, sci fi, kids toys. Whatever appealed to Gary and the other early players. Much that seems traditional to us now isn't generic fantasy, it comes from very specific sources - halflings, orcs, Vancian magic, the arcane/divine split.
> 
> If the races had come from Conan instead of Tolkien, there would've been ape-men, tieflings and serpent people instead of elves, dwarves and orcs.




Right. There was no generic fantasy. I said originally I like the races to be based from literature.  Many of the races introduced in 3.5 were cool for thier crunchiness, and the fluff had a lot to be desired.  Tolkein was the one that decided to use actual myth, where Howard, Leibner, and Moorcock made up their own. D&D for the large part established a tradition to fantasy. That is one of its contributions. Pern is as much fantasy as Melnibone, Hyperborea, and Gondor, but D&D quantified it for RPGs. No one is saying that 4e should not allow the rainbow group that it does now. Some of those that prefer the older versions want to play this quantified traditional fantasy RPG just out of the box.  

I like 3rd edition as a system, and after 1st edition I ran that exclusively.

Even in 3rd edition I never allowed anything but a human or dwarf to be a paladin, and the only non core things I allowed were good feats, spells and prestige classes. I kept (and still keep) the race restricitons from 1st edition as far as what classes races can be. That was easy to house rule. When I play Pathfinder I most likely will not break from the 1st edition tropes. It has nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with taste.

When I listen to cheesy 80's pop to reminice(sp?) about the comics I was reading or the lakes I was camping at... that is nostalgia. I will never say that 80's pop is better than current pop. Current pop is just as bad as 80's pop.

Old D&D is a preference for a style, not so much a desire to pretend I am playing a game at my lake house.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Are you sure you aren't a little to oversensitive and seeing an insult where none is intended?




Positive.

You?



Mallus said:


> Dismissing a person's preferences as mere nostalgia is dumb. But dismissing the role, and _nature_ of nostalgia, is also dumb. Nostalgia indicates you liked something in the past, that perhaps you'd like to recapture some of feeling you had when that thing was new to you. There's nothing wrong with that.




Agreed.




> Apparently it's okay to dismiss people who feel a large part of 'old-school gaming' comes from the way you _approach_ the rules, not from the rules themselves. If you encounter a bloke like that, nod and move on, as if they were muttering to themselves on a crowded street.




I didn't get that from the blog post at all.


RC


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 2, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Check out this 'anime' from 1967:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have read everything that man has written, well except for short stories I have not come across.  He is best described as the new weird. 

However I see nothing 'anime' about the illustration other than a thickness of blade.  That is not nearly the exageration that occurs in anime.

Besides almost every cover of Elric fiction has an irritatingly depicted blade.  But in the books it is called a Broad sword.  SO I am OK with that.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2009)

Here are just a few of the reasons many people have offered for preferring the results of "old school" design, and some corresponding design elements:

Preference: speed of play. Elements: Simplicity, for a start. The interactions of chance to hit, damage, and hit points (or equivalent factors) are also significant; the designers of 4E set those to prolong combats in order to give more opportunities to bring powers into play.

Preference: speed of character generation. Elements: Again, simplicity. "Rolling up" rather than "building" is another factor, which also appeals to those who prefer to "discover" rather than "design".

Preference: a certain level of risk of character mortality (high versus 4E, in the long run low versus some other games). Elements: Taking D&D as an example, the factors used to prolong combats in 4E introduce more occasions of hit-point loss before death, very notably for first-level characters. Other mechanical differences contributing to this may quickly come to mind. Speed of character generation reduces the "down time" from casualties.

Preference: risk of character failure/defeat, even short of death. Elements: Mainly the absence of all the mechanisms that have been developed to "ensure balance" in or "fudge" situations. Those could be stripped away from other games more or less easily, depending on how integrated they are into a whole "system". Their presence, though, is (to those who don't like them) at best a waste and at worst a heavy presumption as to what "the game is about".

(Getting rid of "player elimination" -- a similar phenomenon, I think -- is a trend in board games. In 4E, the design for treasure distribution and for skill challenges, and suggestions concerning awarding of experience points, are examples of implementing a design goal of reducing differences in outcomes.)

Preference: a strategic game. Elements: Besides those above, there are key factors of resource management as well as all that is conducive to "sandbox" play.

Preference: "role-playing, not roll-playing". Elements: The _absence_ of mechanisms here, as in "risk of defeat" above, is significant. However, old-schoolers can point to differences in how "skill systems" enter play in games such as _Traveller_ and how they are integrated in some more modern designs.

Preference: modularity. Elements: The term should pretty much speak for itself, although its higher-order nature makes it difficult to "see the forest by looking at a tree". The contrasting phenomenon is close coupling or integration, yet another case of something _added_ in modern designs and significant not only for the consequences of employing it in play but for the philosophy it embodies.

Preference: "do it yourself". Elements: Modularity and rules-lightness both contribute to manifestation of this philosophy. The degree to which a game is defined by implicit or (even more significantly) explicit background is a notable factor. When old-schoolers purchase a "setting supplement", they tend to want much less detail -- more "blanks to fill in" -- than in modern designs. They may consider rules supplements not "support" but a burden, as such things often come with a presumption that one "must" use them. Scenarios one can easily fit into one's own campaign, though, may be highly appreciated; those that are heavily plot driven or otherwise depend greatly on particular assumptions may be less conducive to that.


One may notice quite often that there is an underlying philosophy of play style that is not strictly incompatible with a modern rules set -- at least if one is willing to modify the set. There's the inconvenience of _needing_ to put in such work, perhaps discarding much of the material one has purchased, just to get something barely adequate. That's another matter from creating "house rules" to fine tune something already quite suitable. On top of that is the host of assumptions selected for and even cultivated in the player demographic by mechanics designed to cater to those expectations.

*The same obviously applies when people with "new school" preferences struggle with a design that has goals contrary to their own.*

"System matters" is a reasonable conclusion, I think.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I didn't get that from the blog post at all.



This is part I was referring to:



			
				James M. again said:
			
		

> The second dismissal claims that old school is "a feeling" and can be divorced both from particular games and particular mechanical designs. The intention behind this dismissal is to claim that one can play any game in an old school fashion, regardless of its vintage or rules. It's an attempt to divorce the animating principles of the early hobby from its mechanical foundations. This is a somewhat more sophisticated dismissal, but, ultimately, it's still a rhetorical trick rather an argument. It's an appeal to an ill-defined "spirit" of the old school as a means of undermining attachment to any particular old school game.




For four years I ran my 3.5e "Tales of CITY" campaign in what I think was fairly called an old-school fashion. Perhaps James would disagree with that characterization, but the notion that we couldn't discuss it, discuss the different _uses_ of a rule set and the changes they produce on the play experience (or that such discussions are too subjective to be meaningful) is ludicrous. People do that all the time here. 

Essentially saying my group's approach to the game amounted to nothing more than a rhetorical trick -- note that he doesn't even bother to engage the point, he just, well, _dismisses_-- makes him seen ill-equipped to pontificate on this subject.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2009)

> Dismissing a person's preferences as mere nostalgia is dumb. But dismissing the role, and _nature_ of nostalgia, is also dumb.



I did not see any such dismissal on J.M.'s part.



> Apparently it's okay to dismiss people who feel a large part of 'old-school gaming' comes from the way you _approach_ the rules, not from the rules themselves.



No! There's a difference between "a large part" and "all". In particular, if a large part is _ignoring_ many of the rules in modern designs  -- then might it not be more efficient to start with a less cumbersome set?


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Positive.
> 
> You?



  So... you quoted a part where Remathalis attempted to paraphrase your argument in an attempt to clarify, by saying that he understood you to be saying that it wasn't the use of the word nostalgia that you didn't like, but the phrase _just_ nostalgia.

You say this is an ad hominem attack, and you're positive that that's not an oversensitive claim to make.

The mind boggles.  Seriously; I'm over here boggling right now.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Here are just a few of the reasons many people have offered for preferring the results of "old school" design, and some corresponding design elements




Thank you for some insight as to why "system matters". Cutting through the signal:Noise ratio, it helps define the terms we have been firing back and forth and gives us some examples.

Allow me to give the "new schoolers" manifesto.

Preference: Cinematic Combat. Elements: The ability to incorporate movement, strategy, unique combat maneuvers, and other drama-inducing elements into cut-and-dry combat. 

Preference: Balanced Game. Elements: No character overshadowing another; meaningful choices at all stages of game. Guidelines for appropriate balance in encounters and treasure.

Preference: Non-Combat Task Resolution System. Elements: some meaningfully defined skill system complex enough to allow diversity of character choice, simple enough to allow the DM to ad-lib when needed.

Preference: Character Lifespan. Elements: Ways to create complex PCs at the starting point and play them (with luck and skill) throughout the course of the game. Removal of "cheap shots" that bypass character defenses. Abilities that make combat "fair contest" and don't allow the PCs (or the DM) to bully through a long-played character with only 1-2 dice rolls or reduce a spectacular end-game scenario to a non-encounter.

Preference: Unified Mechanics. Elements: Game mechanics using similar task-resolution systems, removal of sub-systems (esp class-related subsystems) that slow down play. 

Preference: Expanded Fantasy. Elements: An incorporation of modern trends in fantasy coming from a variety of sources (novels, games, movies, TV) in both fluff, mechanics, and artwork.

Preference: Smooth Play Experience. Elements: A game that is simple to learn, hard to master. Enough rules to create a unified "game experience" without straight-jacketing a DM to one play style alone. New game elements that build off older ones, not supersede them. 


Note: Some of these elements are available in Old School games as well, and not all New school games meet these marks. However, these are the elements I think that define new school game experiences.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I did not see any such dismissal on J.M.'s part.



I did. Not only does he dismiss nostalgia, he goes on to dismiss the relevance of emotional responses when discussing what one _likes_ and _enjoys_ --thought at one point he tries to deny doing just that. The post is riddled with a misplaced appeal to a kind of rationalism.

It's one thing to try and present a logical position, it's quite another to cop a Spock and tar people who disagree with you as emotional. 



			
				James said:
			
		

> More to the point, to resort to feelings is basically to concede the argument before one has even begun.



I imagine the esteemed film critic Pauline Kael would have vehemently disagreed -if she were alive today and a game-nerd instead of a film-nerd.

Also, so long as I'm quibbling, the coinage and subsequent use of the phrase 'ludic indifferentialism' --in an unironic manner , so far as I can tell-- makes me want to smack him. In the spirit of meaningful and substantive discourse, of course .



> No! There's a difference between "a large part" and "all".



Which is irrelevant to the point I was making, to wit, people can certainly have reasonable, informative discussions about touchy-feely subjects like the existence and nature of an old-school _approach_ to the game. A subject that James M. dismisses as impossibly subjective.

edit: I should probably stop harping on James M. He made a bad argument in response to some bad arguments coming from others. I certainly know _that_ feeling.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This is part I was referring to:




Again, I don't see this as saying what you, apparently, see there.

James doesn't seem to be saying (AFAICT) that any game cannot be played in an "old school" fashion, but rather than the ability to do so does not define what "old school" means.

As a simple example, were I to claim that I could play OD&D in a 4e fashion, you could not refute me without further information, but were I to claim that there is therefore no difference between OD&D and 4e, you could (hopefully) dismiss this line of reasoning as (at best) a rhetorical trick.



Hobo said:


> So... you quoted a part where Remathalis attempted to paraphrase your argument in an attempt to clarify, by saying that he understood you to be saying that it wasn't the use of the word nostalgia that you didn't like, but the phrase _just_ nostalgia.
> 
> You say this is an ad hominem attack, and you're positive that that's not an oversensitive claim to make.
> 
> The mind boggles.  Seriously; I'm over here boggling right now.




Hobo, I am not surprised that your mind is boggling.  Your ability to selectively interpret data is second to none.  What Remathilis posted was

I see what you're getting at...

Its not the "nostalgia" part *you're having a fit about*, its the "just".​
(emphasis mine)

This is an attempt to dismiss the argument by an attack on the individual (i.e., dismissable as person simply having a fit), which is one common form of ad hominem attack.

If your mind is still boggling, it is probably due to selectively interpreting the above down to "Hobo....is second to none".   


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I did. Not only does he dismiss nostalgia, he goes on to dismiss the relevance of emotional responses when discussing what one _likes_ and _enjoys_




If this was, in fact, what was presented, then I suppose I would have to agree with you.  However, I believe that you are misinterpreting both his words and his intent.  The reason that "at one point he tries to deny doing just that" is because he isn't doing just that, and he doesn't wish the reader to conclude that he is.

What, AFAICT, James is saying is that (1) an appeal to how something "feels" does no good in attempting to describe what is meant by "old school" (and may, in fact, do harm, as it feeds into rhetorical arguments intended to remove any meaning from the term), and that (2) there are actual, objective differences between mechanics and presentation between "old school" and "new school" games.  He therefore concludes that it is more productive to focus on the objective differences rather than the subjective emotions when defining the term.

While our enjoyment of a particular gaming style may be completely subjective, the elements that enable (or work against) that subjective enjoyment are not completely subjective.

Hence "More than a feeling" rather than "Not a feeling at all".

His propositions (1) and (2) might be argued with, of course.  



RC


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2009)

> Your ability to selectively interpret data is second to none.



I suspect that's conscious hyperbole! Without naming names, I can think of other candidates here at ENworld. Maybe Raven Crowking is "living in a glass house" (see: _throwing rocks_) in this regard as much as I am?

*To err is human, to forgive divine.*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I suspect that's conscious hyperbole! Without naming names, I can think of other candidates here at ENworld. Maybe Raven Crowking is "living in a glass house" (see: _throwing rocks_) in this regard as much as I am?
> 
> *To err is human, to forgive divine.*




Conscious hyperbole needed for the joke line at the end ("Hobo....is second to none").

We are all guilty of selective interpretation of data, even if we try not to be, because it is human nature to be so.

(Of course, for some of us, this selective interpretation of data has more to do with being able to make snide remarks in various asshattery threads on other websites that shall remain nameless than it does with actually trying to converse here.  Not that that is necessarily the case in this particular instance.)



RC


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 3, 2009)

One thing most games featured in the "old school renaissance" have in common is that they are either literally D&D or direct spin-offs from it (EPT, MA, GW, Arduin). A general characterization would be "rules-light" -- which leaves out a lot of old games.

_Chivalry & Sorcery_ doesn't get much love, which seems to hold for pretty much everything from FGU except _Villains & Vigilantes_.

Neither do SPI's _Dragonquest_ and _Universe_. Metagaming's _The Fantasy  Trip_ fares a bit better in the field of RPGs from designers and publishers primarily of "hex and counter" wargames.

_Champions_ and its "Hero System" spin-offs seem to represent one branch of "new school". Some might consider _RuneQuest_ the "granddaddy" of that branch, and _Call of Cthulhu_ the spawner of another -- but whatever their taxonomy they (and _Stormbringer_) have quite a few adherents among folks who also dig old-style D&D.

There are many more. Probably the majority of FRP games in the field's first decade were "fantasy heartbreakers" that tried to be "D&D, but better" -- mostly by making things more complicated. They really have never stopped coming, and usually quickly fading to obscurity.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2009)

I'm not sure that "rules-lite" is a sufficient, or even necessarily relevent, factor in defining the Old School Renaissance, though.  Even the old schoolers often refer to it as such.

AD&D, for example, really wasn't rules lite at all, and yet it's an important part of the OSR.  Yet games like FUDGE or The Window, and plenty of other Forgey type games are extremely rules-lite, and yet have nothing whatsoever to do with the OSR.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 3, 2009)

I would hesitate to call a game that has been around in "pretty much" the same form since 1989 new school. It represented a shift from OD&D and AD&D to be sure, but it really isn't contemporary in the same way that Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft, Spirit of the Century, or Shadowrun 4e is.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 3, 2009)

Rules-lightness seems to me pretty relevant, but note the other design elements mentioned earlier -- and the primacy of D&D. I suspect that a long habit of taking the last bit for granted is one reason why the phenomenon is commonly called simply "old school" rather than (say) "old-school TSR games".

Some people have always favored OD&D, and the PDF releases from WotC gave more an opportunity to check it out. It seems to have especially strong appeal for those who like to take the basic framework of the original set and create a game of one's own -- the way it apparently was meant to be used.

It remains to be seen how many will still stick with the original (or games such as S&W, S&S, or E&S). For how many is it a phase of exploration from which they will eventually return, with informed perspective and new appreciation, to some other presentation?

AD&D is rules-light relative to a lot of other RPGs. The basic elements of the original set are still "in there", and the rest is mainly a polishing of material from the OD&D supplements and The Strategic Review / The Dragon. Modularity facilitates picking and choosing, a core part of the D&D philosophy.

Most D&Ders in my experience, "back in the day", did not draw a sharp distinction among editions: "mix and match" was the order of the day. That hardly anyone played AD&D strictly "by the book" (even to the extent that's meaningful), using every option, hardly stood out from general practice throughout the FRP hobby. Put another way, the DM by the book _was_ the Law.

That relationship with rules is, I think, germane to the design of rules and the choice by players of a text with which to start. Speaking for myself, I would consider it a waste to treat 4E that way (a matter of degree). It accomplishes the goals of the "new school manifesto" offered earlier partly via systematic integration of the components into a carefully balanced whole. Rules mastery is central to play, and the DM's reference to established rules provides the context for the players' manipulations of mechanics.

That similar claims were made for AD&D does not mean that it actually came anywhere near 4E's success in accomplishing those goals. In my opinion, it was very far from the fact.




> I would hesitate to call a game that has been around in "pretty much" the same form since 1989 new school.



Is the reference to *Champions*? If so, then it seems reasonable that there might be "old-school Champions" fans to whom it is significant that (e.g.) the fourth edition hardbound had almost 7 times as many pages as the original rules book, or that it cut Endurance costs in half. That's not relevant to whether the original game -- from the perspective of old-style D&Ders -- represents a significant departure in basic design philosophy.

The newer approach is not necessarily relevant to whether they enjoy the game, either. Why should every game have exactly the same design goals? The old-school view is that old D&D accomplished *what it set out to do* better than alleged "improvements" -- better, in particular, than what has since been offered under the _Dungeons & Dragons_ brand.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> AD&D is rules-light relative to a lot of other RPGs.



I can only think of three. Phoenix Command, GURPS and Chivalry & Sorcery. Champions and 3e might be rules heavier in play but are far more coherent, making it easier to learn and remember the rules.

I see 1e AD&D as being very different from B/X, the only old school version of D&D I like. 1e has tons of rules and they're almost all bad. It's true you can get rid of them fairly easily, but if you do, why play AD&D at all? You're really playing 74 OD&D or B/X.



Ariosto said:


> Modularity facilitates picking and choosing, a core part of the D&D philosophy.



But not the 1e philosophy. A major motivation for its creation was to provide a consistent rule set so a D&D game in Albuquerque would be much the same as a D&D game in Albany. Gary devotes two paragraphs to this subject, the need for unity, in the 1e Preface.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> But not the 1e philosophy. A major motivation for its creation was to provide a consistent rule set so a D&D game in Albuquerque would be much the same as a D&D game in Albany. Gary devotes two paragraphs to this subject, the need for unity, in the 1e Preface.




Not according to Tim Kask, one of the folks responsible for the ultimate shape of AD&D 1e.  The goal was to make a framework from which rulings could be addressed with a greater degree of similarity than with BD&D, but not to remove the DM's ruling from its place of primacy.  Or as Gary says in those paragraphs you mention, every campaign would have points of similarity, although the similar points between any two given games might vary widely.

1e was intended to provide a consistant framework for rulings.  It was not intended to provide consistent rulings between DMs.


RC


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not according to Tim Kask, one of the folks responsible for the ultimate shape of AD&D 1e.  The goal was to make a framework from which rulings could be addressed with a greater degree of similarity than with BD&D, but not to remove the DM's ruling from its place of primacy.  Or as Gary says in those paragraphs you mention, every campaign would have points of similarity, although the similar points between any two given games might vary widely.
> 
> 1e was intended to provide a consistent framework for rulings.  It was not intended to provide consistent rulings between DMs.
> 
> RC




Huh. I thought the purpose was to create a structure of rules suitable for tournament/RPGA gaming that, at the DMs whim, could be changed to suit his style (making the design goals close cousins to every edition of D&D afterward). 

Every edition of D&D has been built to kitbash (though some are more complex kits than others) and while I don't think AD&D is rules light, its certainly lighter than some of its later iterations (like 3e.)

PS: Sorry if I came off snarky earlier. It wasn't my intent.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> AD&D is rules-light relative to a lot of other RPGs.



While not technically incorrect, I also think that's a misleading statement.  In a more "objective" sense, it's not a rules light game.  The fact that you can find even _less_ rules light games out there doesn't change that.

I won't argue that all versions of older D&D shared enough of a similar framework that they work very modularly.  Whether or not they were _intended_ to be used that way I'm less clear on, but obviously they _could_ and _were_ used that way.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 3, 2009)

Heh... AD&D's initiative rules _alone_ disqualify it from being a rules-lite game.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 3, 2009)

> It's true you can get rid of [the different rules] fairly easily, but if you do, why play AD&D at all? You're really playing 74 OD&D or B/X.



 The flip side is why play with the full OD&D line when that's really playing a "beta version" of AD&D?

To a whole lot of folks, one is simply "playing D&D" regardless of which books are at the table and how much material from them one incorporates into the game. "Fairly easily" strikes me as an understatement; it's as simple as not even bothering to digest the bits one finds uninteresting! Plenty of people have taken that naïve route without a second thought.

From what I saw, it was par for the course in the '80s to pick up Advanced books after starting with a Basic set. The hardbound volumes essentially offered more "stuff": classes, weapons, armor, spells, monsters, magic items and so on. The mechanics were so similar among editions as to make differences practically irrelevant to using such stuff.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 4, 2009)

I don't relish the idea of adding fuel to the flame-war, but I might as well put in my two cents.

I consider myself a part of this so-called "old-school renaissance," although I'm rather an aberrant element within it.  I don't care for Moorcock and Leiber novels;  I don't believe that "real D&D" ought to be plot-free swords and sorcery; I despise the "sandbox" campaign style; and when I run OD&D, I use a friggin' skill system, because I don't have time for my players to pat along the dungeon walls with 10' poles until they find my "DM fiat."

(What's more, I think people are right in saying that "old school" makes the whole movement sound exclusionary.  I prefer "retro" myself.  The Retro Renaissance... yeah, that's the ticket.)

But what's really at issue here is not whether nostaliga or emotion are playing a part.  Obviously they are.  Duh.  What matters, and this was the essence of the Grognardia post, is that older RPGs have objectively different qualties from newer RPGs.  This should not be a controversial statement, but apparently it is.

Think about it.  Different RPGs with different rules have real, actual differences that make certain playstyles conducive.  You could certainly try to run a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl with the Vampire system or the old Cthulhu system, but who the hell would ever want to?  They're not meant for that!  Vampire is for storytelling!  Cthulhu is for maddening horror!  You turn to D&D for dungeon crawling!

Ditto for different editions within a single RPG lineage.  Presumably, different editions of the game have different rules.  (Or so I've heard, anyway.)  It only stands to reason, then, that the rules themselves (and the descriptive text that accompanies the rules) will lend themselves better to whatever play style is popular at the time.  

Each edition gets its own zeitgeist.  When the 2nd edition AD&D books proudly proclaim, "this is not a combat game!", you take it for what it is and run a plot-heavy, setting-rich 2nd edition game.  It will have a different feel from a 1st edition game or a 3rd edition game or an Original/Classic game. 

I happen to prefer Original/Classic and 2nd edition to the other versions of the (A)D&D game because these editions have real, objective qualities *which are inherent in the rules and the presentation of the rulebooks*, which influence the way DMs and players approach the game, and which make the game more fun for myself and my group.  

Are we nostalgic about these editions?  Some of us are.  Some of us played these editions first, learned these play-styles first, and so, quite naturally, we prefer rules that lend themselves to our favorite play-styles.  If I had been raised on d20 v3.5, I would probably feel nostalgia for the play-style promoted by d20 v3.5; but don't tell me that I can easily play 1st edition and "approach it with a v3.5 mindset."

Think about how nonsensical this appears on the surface.  "First edition rules; third edition feel!"  Maybe it could be done.  In theory.  But, once again, who the hell would ever want to?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 4, 2009)

Jack Daniel said:


> I don't relish the idea of adding fuel to the flame-war, but I might as well put in my two cents.
> 
> I consider myself a part of this so-called "old-school renaissance," although I'm rather an aberrant element within it.  I don't care for Moorcock and Leiber novels;  I don't believe that "real D&D" ought to be plot-free swords and sorcery; I despise the "sandbox" campaign style; and when I run OD&D, I use a friggin' skill system, because I don't have time for my players to pat along the dungeon walls with 10' poles until they find my "DM fiat."
> 
> ...




The problem with this is that the "zeitgeist" that RPGs get attributed is often a cliche. Vampire is not a game primarily about storytelling just because it´s rules engine is called that. Lots of people played and play it as a superhero-smash-heads game, and it has always been my opinion that is has been successful because it allows that. 

So, "3.5 mindset" and "4e mindset" and "1e mindset" are exactly the problem here - these are chliches constructed on the internet, nothing more. Vocal minorities try to sell you their interpretation of their own RPG experience as "what it was" and "what it is" and "what it should be." At its core, its a thoroughly arrogant thing, like the people saying on messageboards "i would care about 4es rules, but the implied playstyle is just not to my tastes." 

Game systems don´t imply things. People do.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 4, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Game systems <snip>




...are found in books.  Written by people.  With authorial voices.  So they imply things.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 4, 2009)

> Think about how nonsensical this appears on the surface. "First edition rules; third edition feel!" Maybe it could be done. In theory. But, once again, who the hell would ever want to?



Exactly! When I want the kind of experience 3E delivers, 1E is not going to fill the bill. Where are my feats and skills? What happened to the combat rules? Multi-classing and prestige classes? Casting spells daily, and free casting? Whipping up magic items? And so on.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 4, 2009)

On the rules-burden of AD&D: The 1st ed. PHB is (sans reference sheets) 122 pp., half of them devoted to spells. With _OSRIC_, about 60 pp. -- the "Creating a Character" and "How to Play" chapters -- give all the essential "rules" per se (as opposed to spells, monsters, magic items, and encounter tables) for players *and GMs* alike. B/X clone _Labyrinth Lord_ adds spells in that space, but includes fewer of them (as well as of character classes and other stuff). Spells in _OSRIC_ take up about 80 pages.

The 4E PHB devotes 36 pp. to skills and feats, and 33 pp. to combat. Combat takes about 6 pages in _OSRIC_, about 8 in LL (which includes naval rules left out of the former). The 4E chapter on character classes (which includes the spells) is 126 pp. -- longer alone than the entire 1E PHB, and for fewer classes (8, vs. 11 in 1E).

Differences in layout and writing style affect the density of actual rules, but experience with the games gives me some sense of what's involved in a typical session. I don't find a big difference between B/X and AD&D (even with weapon speed factors and adjustments versus armor type), except for the DMG systems for grappling, pummeling and overbearing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 4, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Huh. I thought the purpose was to create a structure of rules suitable for tournament/RPGA gaming that, at the DMs whim, could be changed to suit his style (making the design goals close cousins to every edition of D&D afterward).




To a degree this is true.  The goal was to create a framework whereby the rulings of various DMs would be similar enough to allow for tournament gaming, and also to allow D&D players to move from one game to another with comparative ease.

However, even while saying that, Gary attempted to make clear that the rules in the book would not be the same from campaign to campaign, but would have points of similarity that would make transition from one game to another possible.  He went so far as to say that the points of similarity between any two campaigns would be different than those between any other two.

It was not the function of AD&D 1e to create a paradigm in which the DM had to refer to (and defer to) the books in order to play.

I haven't read through my newest issue of Dragon Roots yet, and it may be that Tim Kask's column has changed from the proof version, but if not, one can read Mr. Kask's comments re:  this topic in Dragon Roots #3.

(I'll check the column today & make sure it hasn't been changed to a different topic from the proof; the proof column was a bit "ranty", so it might have.)

In any event, no apology is necessary for having appeared snarky earlier, although I thank you for the courtesy of saying so.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2009)

Jack Daniel said:


> Each edition gets its own zeitgeist.  When the 2nd edition AD&D books proudly proclaim, "this is not a combat game!", you take it for what it is and run a plot-heavy, setting-rich 2nd edition game.  It will have a different feel from a 1st edition game or a 3rd edition game or an Original/Classic game.



Yeah, well that doesn't really work, though.  Because the core rules of 2e were almost exactly the same as the core rules for 1e.  Although the paradigm and presentation _may_ have changed (although that's debateable) the rules didn't.  At least not significantly.  It wasn't until late in the 2e life cycle, and assuming that a lot of non-core options were layered in, that you could make the claim that mechanically you were doing something significantly different.


			
				Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> Think about how nonsensical this appears on the surface.  "First edition rules; third edition feel!"  Maybe it could be done.  In theory.  But, once again, who the hell would ever want to?



Heh.  Apparently, a whole hell of a lot of people.  It's not nonsensical at all; you can have enjoyed the "feel" of first edition just fine while simultaneously finding the ruleset frustrating and unsatisfying.

:shrug:


----------



## Oni (Jun 4, 2009)

Jack Daniel said:


> I don't relish the idea of adding fuel to the flame-war, but I might as well put in my two cents.
> 
> I consider myself a part of this so-called "old-school renaissance," although I'm rather an aberrant element within it.  I don't care for Moorcock and Leiber novels;  I don't believe that "real D&D" ought to be plot-free swords and sorcery; I despise the "sandbox" campaign style; and when I run OD&D, I use a friggin' skill system, because I don't have time for my players to pat along the dungeon walls with 10' poles until they find my "DM fiat."
> 
> ...




I like to think of a games mechanics as a tool.  Basically all rpg's are a similar tool trying to do a similar job.  How they handle and how well they handle certain aspects of that job varies from tool to tool, but they can all do it in a fashion.  So it is up to the person using the tool to pick the one that does the job in the way they most prefer.  Of course you give two people the exact same tool, and they may not use it in exactly the same way.  How their tool of choice is implemented is up to them, they may not even use it the same way each time.  So when you want to run a game of some sort you have to go choose the tool you want to use and decide how you want to use it.  How you choose to approach the job doesn't dictate what tool you use, you choose the one you're most comfortable with (since they're all basically made for the same set of tasks).


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Is the reference to *Champions*? If so, then it seems reasonable that there might be "old-school Champions" fans to whom it is significant that (e.g.) the fourth edition hardbound had almost 7 times as many pages as the original rules book, or that it cut Endurance costs in half. That's not relevant to whether the original game -- from the perspective of old-style D&Ders -- represents a significant departure in basic design philosophy.




It's design goals do in fact differ from AD&D, but they also differ substantially from a lot of other games that are not AD&D. The point I was largely trying to make is that while old school might in fact be a meaningful descriptor new school isn't especially if you're going to use it to describe the RPGs that came out during the 80's, early 90's, and today. 



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> The newer approach is not necessarily relevant to whether they enjoy the game, either. Why should every game have exactly the same design goals? The old-school view is that old D&D accomplished *what it set out to do* better than alleged "improvements" -- better, in particular, than what has since been offered under the _Dungeons & Dragons_ brand.




Those "improvements" did not share the exact same design goals as the editions that preceded them. Instead, they were designed to create a D&D experience that would be relevent to the audience of the day. One should look at each game is its own element and apreciate them for what they are. 4e and 3e weren't trying to be AD&D, and they both succeed admirably at arriving at their design goals while retaining certain thematic elements that have been with D&D since the beginning.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 4, 2009)

Oni said:
			
		

> So when you want to run a game of some sort you have to go choose the tool you want to use and decide how you want to use it. How you choose to approach the job doesn't dictate what tool you use, you choose the one you're most comfortable with (since they're all basically made for the same set of tasks).



I disagree. The match between rules set and GM is critical -- but the GM's preferred approach is a key part of that side of the equation! The notion that it makes no difference  whether one selects _Rolemaster_ or _Legendary Lives_ does not hold up in light of my experience, and flies in the face of common sense. There is a reason people set out to design different games in the first place, or else we'd all still be playing Gygax and Perren's _Chainmail_.

I agree with Hobo that there was a disjunction in 2E between mechanics and advice on play, and even within the latter. (Consistency and sheer volume of tone-setting material seems to me more significant in White Wolf designs than any nod to narrative in mechanics).

One might say that the full development of the 2E line, in rules supplements, scenarios and campaign settings, was what really parted it from sympathy with the ethos of the "old school". The core books get an unfair rap in that quarter, perhaps -- yet the game has a strong presence at Dragonsfoot, "home of 1st Edition AD&D".

With 4E, I see -- despite its being another design by committee -- a return to coherent vision. It's a very different vision from the Gygaxian, realized in appropriately different approaches.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The match between rules set and GM is critical...



For some people. For folks like me, we (usually) ran the current version of D&D because it was always well-supported and everyone was familiar with it. 



> The notion that it makes no difference  whether one selects _Rolemaster_ or _Legendary Lives_ does not hold up in light of my experience, and flies in the face of common sense.



The notion that system _never_ matters, is, indeed, silly. As is the notion system matters _significantly_ to _everyone_. 



> I agree with Hobo that there was a disjunction in 2E between mechanics and advice on play, and even within the latter.





> One might say that the full development of the 2E line, in rules supplements, scenarios and campaign settings, was what really parted it from sympathy with the ethos of the "old school".



Which is to say that even though, as Hobo pointed out, 1e and 2e are very similar in terms of their mechanics, people tended to play them differently They _approached_ them differently. They _used_ them differently. And these differences in the approach to/use of two mechanically similar games matter a quite lot when in comes to their 'feel', old-school or otherwise.

Sometimes the system itself matters. Other times it's how the system is used that matters. If Jame M. would have simply acknowledged this, instead of trying to sweep it under the rug in a ill-advised bid to claim the objective high ground (how many metaphors can I mix in one sentence??), his point would have been stronger.

edit: I said I'd stop harping on James M., didn't I? Note to self: no more harping!


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 4, 2009)

Mallus, I think it is significant that the "legacy" design in 2E was an awkward fit with the new goals. There is nothing to keep people from trying to pound a square peg into a round hole!

I see a similar problem in 3E, although the target had been moved yet again. Some of the goals of that design were carried over to 4E, but (in my opinion) with the benefit of having learned what did not work in implementing them. My impression is that it is the abandonment of some other (and probably incompatible) goals that has lost some 3E fans to the new game.

One cannot please all people all the time!


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Which is to say that even though, as Hobo pointed out, 1e and 2e are very similar in terms of their mechanics, people tended to play them differently They _approached_ them differently. They _used_ them differently. And these differences in the approach to/use of two mechanically similar games matter a quite lot when in comes to their 'feel', old-school or otherwise.



Did they?  That seems to challenge the notion of your earlier claim that system _doesn't_ matter to everyone equally.

See, I tend to play almost _all_ RPGs more or less the same way.  Therefore, my criteria for how "good" an RPG system is how well that system supports how I play instead of hindering it.  Therefore, changing the "approach" and the presentation of a game while leaving the mechanics mostly intact would have literally no effect on me whatsoever.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 4, 2009)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The notion that system _never_ matters, is, indeed, silly. As is the notion system matters _significantly_ to _everyone_.



I don't find the second premise silly, as it matches all the compelling evidence I have encountered.

Now, one might not *care much* about system if one is similarly cavalier as to style of play. I have in mind your difficulty seeing the issues with which Samuel Leming was grappling in 4E, and indeed the usual tenor of responses by devotees to those who lack enthusiasm for the design.

That brings us back to the focus on "feelings" as the determinant of significance, which is fine for one to claim for oneself -- but not as a means to cast aspersions on others.

Not minding a change in approach to match that of a game, or accepting incompatibility between the two, is not the same as establishing that there is no _objective_ significance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 4, 2009)

Well said, Ariosto.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Did they?



For the sake of argument I was accepting that 1e and 2e produced different play experiences for a lot of people (in reductive shorthand 'subterranean f-ing Vietnam' vs. 'epic fantasy storytelling'). It's an opinion I've encountered frequently around here, but I honestly have no idea how accurate it is. 



> See, I tend to play almost _all_ RPGs more or less the same way.



So do I. God help me... 



> Therefore, changing the "approach" and the presentation of a game while leaving the mechanics mostly intact would have literally no effect on me whatsoever.



I'm a big believer in the idea that RPG play primarily occurs in a place unmediated by rules, so things like GM technique, shared assumptions, the social contract(s) in place are more important than the specific rules being used. This goes a long way towards explaining how gamers can play what's ostensibly the same game so many different ways. And, curiously enough, why I keep harping on James M.'s blog post.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I don't find the second premise silly, as it matches all the compelling evidence I have encountered.



That's fair. 



> Now, one might not *care much* about system if one is similarly cavalier as to style of play.



It's not that I don't care about system or style of play. In fact, I think the relationship between the two in really interesting --hence my posting in threads like this. I just think you need a nuance when discussing that relationship.


----------



## Oni (Jun 4, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I disagree. The match between rules set and GM is critical -- but the GM's preferred approach is a key part of that side of the equation! The notion that it makes no difference  whether one selects _Rolemaster_ or _Legendary Lives_ does not hold up in light of my experience, and flies in the face of common sense. There is a reason people set out to design different games in the first place, or else we'd all still be playing Gygax and Perren's _Chainmail_.




Um...I'm not sure I said that at all.  I quite plainly stated that different systems handle different aspects of the task of running a table top game in different ways and with varying degrees of success.  That's certainly not the same as saying system does not matter.  What I did say was that you are not required to use a certain rules set to run in a certain style.  Much of that comes down to the GM's ability to finesse the system to make it do what he wants.  Some GM's depend on the system for the feel, and when they want to change the feel of their game they change the system, others can make one system sing and bend it to whatever feel they want.  If I was saying there was no difference between systems, why would I talk about choosing the tool that best fits you and the job at hand?  Please don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 4, 2009)

Sorry, Oni. I read you stating, "How you choose to approach the job doesn't dictate what tool you use."  I apologize for misrepresenting your meaning, which I misunderstood.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2009)

For what it's worth, _I'm_ not convinced that system matters.  That much, anyway.

That said, I still love to tinker with systems to get them to do what I want better.  But I've found that I can start with a completely different chassis and still get more or less the same play experience, once I tinker a little bit.

/tangent


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 4, 2009)

Jack Daniels said:
			
		

> ...are found in books.  Written by people.  With authorial voices.  So they imply things.




The Author has been Dead for a long, long time now.  WoD Mage is neither superhero beat-em-up, crypto-subjectivist punk, or internal politics & metaplot simulator.  Elements of each are included at the detriment of no separate conclusion.



			
				Jack Daniels said:
			
		

> But what's really at issue here is not whether nostaliga or emotion are playing a part. Obviously they are. Duh. What matters, and this was the essence of the Grognardia post, is that older RPGs have objectively different qualties from newer RPGs. This should not be a controversial statement, but apparently it is.




Yeah, that's probably the thing here.  (Subjective conclusions italicized below)

I know that there are objectively different qualities in editions of D&D that can be game-changing enough with your preferred style so much so that you actively choose a system based on it.  _3rd level spell Flight can die in a fire along with every other encounter-skip spell like it._  So when one chooses a system *among *the "Old School Revival", it is based on system assumptions and internal preferences along with nostalgia and "feel".

Yet save for the soft claim of "rules light", _which I don't think works with my view of Turn Undead and Weapon Speed tables, _along with the similar-yet-excluded example of 2E Hobo speaks of, the games among the "Old School Revival" do not have a singular philosophy.  

What the games do have in common, however, is the "grognard" subculture of bloggers/gamers and the game designers that serve them, and the rapid communication between them available because of the Internet.  This cause and effect relation, found only in the 4E release->OSR rather than the 3E release->OSR, implies that while the game system assumptions that define the "old school" are *ahem* old and pre-existent, they are not the cause of the change.

Unless one wishes to tie Piazo's Pathfinder into to the "Old School Revival" as well and in so doing defy categorization of the meaning "Old School" other than pre-extant gaming, _at which point we're calling the OSR a beast fed on nostalgia and bitterness._


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 5, 2009)

> The games among the "Old School Revival" do not have a singular philosophy.



If you're referring to pre-2E D&D, I think the evidence is soundly against that claim. In any case, subscription to "a singular philosophy" is hardly necessary to an artistic school! This is not primarily a case of people coming up with a category a priori and then looking for (or making) specimens to fill it. It is primarily a case of noticing that affinities have already arisen, and then looking at what the members have in common. 

There is not a universal mutual antipathy in tastes between the "new school" of D&D and the old, because there are people of eclectic tastes. I think it is clear, though, that a very strong preference for one or the the other is most common.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 5, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I think it is clear, though, that a very strong preference for one or the the other is most common.



Nah, that's just the internet. It's a filthy liar and it tends to polarise.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 5, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> What the games do have in common, however, is the "grognard" subculture of bloggers/gamers and the game designers that serve them, and the rapid communication between them available because of the Internet.  This cause and effect relation, found only in the 4E release->OSR rather than the 3E release->OSR, implies that while the game system assumptions that define the "old school" are *ahem* old and pre-existent, they are not the cause of the change.
> 
> Unless one wishes to tie Piazo's Pathfinder into to the "Old School Revival" as well and in so doing defy categorization of the meaning "Old School" other than pre-extant gaming, _at which point we're calling the OSR a beast fed on nostalgia and bitterness._




And we have a winner.

First off, how "Old" does an OS game have to be? 1970's is a given. What about games made int the 80's? Or the 90's? (if not, you exclude BECMI and 2e). Is the only qualifier being OOP? (Which technically allows 3.5 to be OSR). 

Secondly, how "lite" is rules lite? Are we talking core rules only or supplements too? (AD&D and OD&D get remarkably complex when you factor in supplements). 

Third, how do we define lite? 4e is lighter than 3e, not as light as OD&D, but is it lighter than 2e? Than 2e + Skills & Powers? 

Fourth, what about retro-inspired (Hackmaster, C&C, BFRPG) and retro-clones (OSRIC, LL)? The strictly break the age requirement, so what do we judge them on? Closeness to original material? Liteness? (if so, does True d20 count?) Something else? (see below).  

Lastly, What qualities (other than rule density and age) can lump these games together? Are we looking for specific rules (thac0, save vs spell), or tone (the 1e tone is vastly different than 2e's tone, but striking similar to 3e's)? Is it authorship (Only games penned by Gygax himself)? 

What gets included in the "OSR" cannon? Until these traits are defined, it IS just a feeling, and that feeling will differ from poster to poster, board to board, DM to DM. The individual player/DM might have reasons beyond "nostalgia" to play (easy of play/prep, tone, etc) but the movement as a whole is nostalgic unless you can define what an OS game IS.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 5, 2009)

Remathilis, was it not you who posted a "new school manifesto" in contrast to the list of "old school" preferences and design elements I posted?

This line of argument looks to me like a straw man. People see things in common among one group of games that they find lacking in another group. The distinction seems useful enough to me, and diversity among members of a group is what makes them distinct members! The gambit on the dismissers' part seems to be to push for a requirement of identity rather than similarity. Should that hold for mice and men as well?

There's a neat Catch-22 in that "old-schoolers" get blasted *for* trying to define OS, and blasted for being "just nostalgic" when they don't. Rinse and repeat.

The catch on the other side is so depriving the term of meaning that you can't claim *your* favorite newfangled game is "old school" regardless of how you play it or how it "feels" to you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

If you are a proponent of 4e (or any other game system where you need to purchase the rules), I would say that your purchase (perhaps ongoing purchase, esp. in the case of the 4e commercial set-up) demonstrates not only proof that system does matter to you (regardless of claiming otherwise), but that system matters to you at least to the value of the (perhaps ongoing) purchase price.

Otherwise, why not play a free game, if the system is irrelevant?


RC


----------



## rounser (Jun 5, 2009)

> Otherwise, why not play a free game, if the system is irrelevant?



Why not indeed!?  Dungeon Squad! for everybody!

Dagnabbit, no leveling...but hey, rules don't matter apparently!  Anybody want to play a Monopoly Mystara campaign?  Birthright Bingo?  Roulette Ravenloft?  Texas Horde-em Poker?

Reductio ad absurdum...for great justice!


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 5, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Otherwise, why not play a free game, if the system is irrelevant?



Was that directed at me?  I think I'm the only one who said that system doesn't matter that much.  And I'm not a proponent of 4e, nor someone who's bought it.

That answer is: who says I don't?  The Window is one of my favorite games, and I use it a fair amount.

By the way, it's a heck of a lot rules-liter than any version of D&D, even core rulebook only OD&D (1974).  And more flexible at the same time.  Maybe it's Old School?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

rounser said:


> Reductio ad absurdum...for great justice!




There is actually no reductio at all, because the claim is that system doesn't matter, specifically between those games being called old school (many of which are available for free) and modern games, such as 4e.

Literally, if system doesn't matter between these offerings, and even one of these offerings is known to be free, perforce the free game would be the one everyone played.

And yet....not.

It is (perhaps) especially telling that it is the people paying through the nose who are trying to claim that system doesn't matter, while demonstrating that it does to them in an ongoing manner.


RC



EDIT:  And no, Hobo, that wasn't directed at you, nor are you the only person making a claim that system doesn't matter.  You are not a lone voice in the wilderness.  Sorry.

EDIT to the EDIT:  Though it is nice to see you promoting The Window, where maybe you are a lone voice in the wilderness.  I'll have to check it out.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2009)

A question might be whether it actually _changes_ the play style, or it just provides more tools you want for that play style? 

It seemed as if people always play their games according to their preferences, regardless of what the games offers. Even if this requires houserules and rulings. 

Does old school gaming mean that the "old school games" (whichever these ones are) offer just the right choices for your play style?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 5, 2009)

System matters. The question is, how much?

Are Necromancer Games 3e adventures and Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics part of the old school renaissance? If yes, then that shows the limitation of system as a means of categorisation.

One could even say 3e itself was part of the old school renaissance with its 'Back to the Dungeon' after the more setting and story focused 2e. Though, as has been said, with 2e there was a disconnect between the rules and what you were supposed to do with them. Vampire has the exact same disconnect.

One could also say 4e is old school in several respects. There's a similar focus on location based adventures and monster slaying. And the need for minis is as old school as it gets, going all the way back before D&D to Chainmail.

And yet sites such as Grognardia or Dragonsfoot seem to be very anti-d20. But Castles & Crusades is widely recognised as being both d20 *and* old school.

So there's a definite problem in defining what is and isn't part of the old school renaissance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A question might be whether it actually _changes_ the play style, or it just provides more tools you want for that play style?




I imagine that this varies widely between individuals and groups.  Some, as you note. "always play their games according to their preferences, regardless of what the games offers".  Others, I imagine, find themselves influenced by what the rules offer.

Because of my take on human nature, I actually expect the latter group to be larger than the former.  Because I believe people essentially follow the path of least resistance, except when they consciously decide to do otherwise, I believe that people tend to change their gaming habits over time to better match what a particular system does well.

I am not skeptical that people can play according to their preferences, regardless of what a game offers, but I am skeptical of any specific claim of the same.  IME, people tend to believe that they themselves are not influenced by outside factors, even when they believe that the majority of other people clearly are.  Thus we have cases where, for example, most doctors claim that they are not personally affected by gifts from pharmaceutical companies, while at the same time claiming that almost all the doctors they know are influenced by the same.

IMHO, game design matters in the vast majority of cases.  It is certainly a principle that is guiding me with RCFG....I want the game to make focusing on sandbox play easy, for example.  I will concede, however, that awareness of how game design influences players is not nearly as common, especially in terms of self-awareness.



> Does old school gaming mean that the "old school games" (whichever these ones are) offer just the right choices for your play style?




I would say so, yes.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> And the need for minis is as old school as it gets, going all the way back before D&D to Chainmail.




The need for minis is certainly _*wargamey*_, but it isn't old-school RPG-ey.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 5, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> The need for minis is certainly _*wargamey*_, but it isn't old-school RPG-ey.



No?  All the old school RPGs assumed you used them.  How is it not?

As an aside, I know I'm not the only one to profess the opinoin that system doesn't matter much.  I am, however, the only one to profess that opinion in this particular conversation, at least over the course of the last several pages.  Hence my question of whether or not that post was directed at me.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Otherwise, why not play a free game, if the system is irrelevant?



1) No one, not even me, said system is irrelevant. 

2) What I did say is that system doesn't matter as much to some people. 

3) What I was getting at was the idea that systems don't necessarily determine the nature of play. At least not as clearly, nor to the extent that some folks were claiming.

3.1) Which is to say I believe you can play 3e or 4e in an old-school way. Conversely, you can play OD&D and 1e in a new-school way that would tick off the Grognard Army. I imagine the way I play D&D would have always ticked off the Grognard Army.

4) Why not play a free game? I don't know. I like shopping? 

5) Seriously though, I purchased 4e because I wanted a new set of rules to mess around with. Turns out I like them. 

6) Only in Raven-land does the statement: "System doesn't matter that much to me" equate to "You must find free game and play only that or be guilty of logic-crime".

6.1) This is probably because the national sport of Raven-land is using logic where it doesn't really apply.

7) In Mallus-land it means "When it comes to campaign style/flavor/feel, the system isn't as important as the people using it".

8) It also means "I'm not looking for an ideal system. I like and play several games. Some it's not contradictory for me to purchase different game systems over the course of a few years".

9) Did I mention I like shopping? I actually was being serious.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

Hobo said:


> No?  All the old school RPGs assumed you used them.




No, they did not.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 1) No one, not even me, said system is irrelevant.




So, then, are we all in agreement that system matters?  Because I am more then willing to accept that "system doesn't matter as much to some people", even if those who claim that system doesn't matter as much to them might not be accurate in that claim. 



> 6) Only in Raven-land does the statement: "System doesn't matter that much to me" equate to "You must find free game and play only that or be guilty of logic-crime".
> 
> 6.1) This is probably because the national sport of Raven-land is using logic where it doesn't really apply.




Logic always applies, when determining whether or not a given statement makes sense.  

For example, look at your (7) and (8):

7) In Mallus-land it means "When it comes to campaign style/flavor/feel, the system isn't as important as the people using it".

8) It also means "I'm not looking for an ideal system. I like and play several games. Some it's not contradictory for me to purchase different game systems over the course of a few years".​
If you like and play several games, and you play those games with the same people, then while it may be true that the system isn't as important as the people using it, it must also be true that the system is important.  Othewise, why play additional games?

Because you like shopping _*for new systems*_?  Strongly implies system is important.

Because you like playing different systems?  Strongly implies system is important.

So, as long as we agree that system matters, not only are we in agreement on this topic, but, AFAICT, we are in agreement with the original blog post.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 5, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, they did not.



Yeah, pretty much they did.

Boy, this is a great conversation.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 5, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Yeah, pretty much they did.
> 
> Boy, this is a great conversation.




Not that I disagree that this is a great conversation...

I don't think in 1/2 edition you had to use miniatures or even that it was assumed.  I went on and off, finding that it was usually easier not to use minis.

I use minis in 3rd edition, but not in Mutants and Masterminds.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Not that I disagree that this is a great conversation...
> 
> I don't think in 1/2 edition you had to use miniatures or even that it was assumed.  I went on and off, finding that it was usually easier not to use minis.





Indeed.  In these games it was explicit that you did not need minis.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 5, 2009)

Did not need them != did not assume that they were generally used.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 5, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Did not need them != did not assume that they were generally used.




  We have testimony from Old Geezer over on RPG.net (one of the original players) that Gygax never used minis for D&D. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> We have testimony from Old Geezer over on RPG.net (one of the original players) that Gygax never used minis for D&D. Make of that what you will.




The books say you don't need 'em, Gary never used 'em, the play examples never reference them, but if Hobo says all the old school RPGs assumed you used them........Well..........obviously Gary was wrong about what his own assumptions were!


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jun 5, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Did not need them != did not assume that they were generally used.




Honestly, I don't think they were generally used.  I played in lots of groups.  I am the only one that ever TRIED to use them and that did nt go well.

I am sure there are 1st edition gamers that did use them.  What I remember is everyone collected miniatures but did not use them practically in game.  Often they were used for 'illustration' purposes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Did not need them != did not assume that they were generally used.





And, if you would, let us look at what you took exception to in the first place:

Doug McCrae:  And the need for minis is as old school as it gets, going all the way back before D&D to Chainmail. 

Raven Crowking:  The need for minis is certainly wargamey, but it isn't old-school RPG-ey.

Hobo:  No? All the old school RPGs assumed you used them. How is it not?​
We will hopefully note where "need for minis" became conflated with "assumed you used them".  

(Here's a hint; it's the third quote.)

In any event, one wonders exactly where you get the idea that their use was assumed, given that (1) players are explicitly told they are not necessary, (2) the founder of the game didn't use them, and (3) the examples of play in the books don't use them.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 5, 2009)

Oh, I didn't use them either.  But that's because I purposefully ignored everything about minis.  Mini use and old school are indelibly intertwined in my old school experiences, though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 5, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Oh, I didn't use them either.  But that's because I purposefully ignored everything about minis.  Mini use and old school are indelibly intertwined in my old school experiences, though.





So, this is similar to "I never found magic items all that magical," right?  Followed by "I didn't want to find them magical" after you gain enough response?  Wouldn't that qualify as, oh, I don't know, trolling?


RC


----------



## TheFindus (Jun 5, 2009)

This thread is about a response to the „old school revival“. And the OP seems to think that a lot of that has to do with a feeling of nostalgia and almost nothing to do with how the systems actually compare and are played. I do not think I agree too much.
 I do think that we can discuss different editions of a role playing system without starting an edition war. I think that you can compare different editions and what their mechanics mean for the style of play without being insulting. After all, everybody is entitled to their own opinion and there is no objective way to measure a good or bad way to play a roleplaying game, since it is a only a game and not some sort of life saving medical procedure.


 But I do think that rule systems have a strong influence on the style of play. When you play Harnmaster, for example, you look at combat in a different way, because it is far more deadly than a DnD combat. When you play Warhammer FRP, there is a different way to play as well, because all the character classes are conceptually so much an integral part of the world already. And if you play with a system that offers no rules for the use of skills, for example, that is a different game, too, I think.  

 I started to play roleplaying games in the early 80s, back when an elf was a mixture between a magic user and a fighter, a fighter was a human and a dwarf was, well, a dwarf. I am not a follower of the „old school movement“ and I think this thread is about giving noninsulting reasons for that.


 Looking back at the basic DnD system, one first thing comes to mind: The lack of rules for many things that seem so commonplace in today's systems: skills, specific combat maneuvers, etc. In general, the DM had to come up with rules for this on her own. In the group I played back then, we, for example, decided to use the skill system of the german game „The Dark Eye“ at some point, because there was nothing else there. Maybe there was, but we just did not know about it then.
 Today, I prefer to play with a system with rules that cover all the important aspects of in-game situations. And skills are important. This is because I as a DM feel that I should have to spend less time improvising rules and rather spend my time thinking about the story we would like to play. Please, I am not saying that this in not something old schoolers do (thinking about a great story that is), do not get me wrong. But I am of the opinion that having to come up with rules on your own uses more time in addition to coming up with a story.  
 Secondly, the way a DM rules certain things is heavily dependent on the quality of the DM. With a system like 3.x or 4e, you can assume the rules have been playtested and work. I know that there are exceptions, but these are even more apparent with homebrew rules, I think.
 And what if I forget to write the rule down and the situation comes up again? Will I remember the rule from three weeks ago? Or will the other players have to remind me?
 To sum it up: It is easier to play with a system that offers coherent rules that everybody can look up and that do not rely so much on the whim of a single person. To me, this is more fair, too, because there is more mechanical control in the hand of the other players and not just in the hands of the DM.


 The second thing that plays a part is the lack of balance that „old school“ modules offer in my view. Looking through the B-series and the X-series of adventure modules, I cannot remember the encounters being balanced in a way. It even says sometimes that an encounter could be too much for the PCs and then they need to run or find some other way to survive.
 Again, there are those who like it that way, and if they want to play like that, that is fine with me.
 The reason why I am glad that „modern“ adventures follow a different concept is that I feel that running away is useless if there is no story reason for it. Useless from a story and experience point of view. Running away can be dramatic and fun and make a good story. But to have to run away just because the DM rolls up the wrong monster on a „Wandering Monster Table“ is not for me.  


 So, yes, there are major differences in the style of play. And I think that is why „old schoolers“ like the older versions so much. Because they like to play that way. And I do not. Not anymore. I do not feel insulted by their view. And I hope I have not insulted anybody with my point of view. Or with the fact that this is a very long post.


----------



## rounser (Jun 5, 2009)

> No? All the old school RPGs assumed you used them. How is it not?



No, they didn't.  For the most part, fantasy miniatures _did not exist_ back then.  They only put the word "miniatures" on the cover because the term "roleplaying game" hadn't been coined yet, and they had no idea how else to differentiate it as a game for hobbyists.  It was not assumed you'd use miniatures, and the vast majority didn't.


> Mini use and old school are indelibly intertwined in my old school experiences, though.



That's remarkably convenient.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 5, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> System matters. The question is, how much?



Enough not to dismiss preference for an old approach as "just nostalgia."



> Are Necromancer Games 3e adventures and Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics part of the old school renaissance? If yes, then that shows the limitation of system as a means of categorisation.



Sure: it's limited to categorizing system!

NG and GG have published new editions of old material, and GG has published the _Random Esoteric Creature Generator_. GG at least has also published scenarios that in their linearity are the antithesis of OS -- which was true of some classic TSR tournament modules as well!



> One could even say 3e itself was part of the old school renaissance with its 'Back to the Dungeon' after the more setting and story focused 2e.



One could say that, but one would be wrong. "What the game was like before 3E" is pretty much the operative definition of OS. The big issues with 2E are not to do with the core rules.



> One could also say 4e is old school in several respects.



That's dubious, and in any case the game as a whole manages to make 3E look good by comparison, from an OS perspective.



> And yet sites such as Grognardia or Dragonsfoot seem to be very anti-d20. But Castles & Crusades is widely recognised as being both d20 *and* old school.



There's a coat of "d20 system paint" in ascending AC and the "SIEGE system" (which is not really a system at all, but provides an illusion that may comfort some). What's underneath is pretty OS. Some folks have "history" with it from development that left a bad taste in their mouths, because it had been billed as a new AD&D. It's not AD&D.



> So there's a definite problem in defining what is and isn't part of the old school renaissance.



There may be a problem you have chosen to make for yourself, but that's easily solved by letting the OSR speak for itself.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 6, 2009)

Ok, for the LAST time...

I'll list the game, you tell me if its OSR or not.

OD&D (core)
OD&D (+ Supplements)
Basic (Holmes)
Basic (B/X, Cook/Molvay)
Basic (BECMI/Rule Cyclopedia)
AD&D 1e (core)
AD&D 1e (+ Supplements/Unearthed Arcana)
AD&D 2e (core)
AD&D 2e (+ Supplements)
AD&D 2e (Players Option line)
D&D 3e/v3.5 (core+ Supplements)
D&D 4e (core + Supplements)
Hackmaster
Labyrinth Lord
Castles & Crusades
Basic Fantasy RPG
Swords & Wizardry
OSRIC 2.0
Pathfinder
True d20

Simple yes/no would be appreciated.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 6, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I'll list the game, you tell me if its OSR or not.



I don't see how the original 70s + 80s games could be part of the OSR, they're just straight OS aren't they? Playing one today would be OSR, the game itself is OS. Or perhaps that's too fine a distinction.

To me OS refers to D&D before Gary left TSR, associated play styles, and other games that resemble D&D of that period.

Dragonlance? Not OS, even though it's not quite post-Gary. 2e? Not OS. Roleplaying? Not OS. The word 'milieu'? OS. PCs with no personality or name? OS. Sandbox-style play? OS. Massive dungeons with different monsters in every room and the whole thing is controlled by a mad wizard whose name is an anagram of the DM's name? OS.


----------



## rounser (Jun 6, 2009)

OD&D (core) yes
OD&D (+ Supplements) yes
Basic (Holmes) yes
Basic (B/X, Cook/Molvay) yes
Basic (BECMI/Rule Cyclopedia) yes
AD&D 1e (core) yes*
AD&D 1e (+ Supplements/Unearthed Arcana) yes*
AD&D 2e (core) yes*
AD&D 2e (+ Supplements) yes/no**
AD&D 2e (Players Option line) no**
D&D 3e/v3.5 (core+ Supplements) no
D&D 4e (core + Supplements) no
Hackmaster yes***
Labyrinth Lord yes
Castles & Crusades yes
Basic Fantasy RPG yes
Swords & Wizardry yes
OSRIC 2.0 yes
Pathfinder no
True d20 no

But that's just my opinion.  And certain systems get a free ticket for reasons of attitude and pedigree, or don't qualify for the same.  And oldschool status doesn't imply an assessment of quality or lack thereof.

*1E has a lot of rules which no-one ever used (e.g. survival guides) or Gygax regrets putting in there (e.g. psionics) which could be considered un-oldschool in philosophy.  2E core has some of these oft-ignored convolutions too.  For me, old school also encompasses the way things end up getting played, not just the RAW.

**Depends how much and which rules are used.  Although elegant in places, skills and powers toys with madness, and is generally regarded as 2E's tipping point of no return.  You can also jam up 2E's works with weird optional rules that would quickly render it unoldschool - the game bending psionics rules, for instance.

***It's an AD&D 1E parody, so must belong to the category at least in spirit if you consider 1E AD&D to be oldschool.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

If you use products from the OSR in your game -- whatever it is -- then I would call that playing a part in the OSR! The old game books themselves are obviously not products of the "renaissance", but people dusting them off to play may be. Products of WotC are products of WotC. Some people might conceive of the OSR primarily (or wholly?) in terms of initiatives by hobbyists, but I don't know. It's certainly possible for something to have some OS design elements without being seen by designer or users as part of the OSR.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 6, 2009)

rounser said:


> OD&D (core) yes
> OD&D (+ Supplements) yes
> Basic (Holmes) yes
> Basic (B/X, Cook/Molvay) yes
> ...




Which of these would be considered "old school" (OSR)?

RuneQuest
Chivalry and Sorcery
Tunnels and Trolls
Traveller
Dragonquest


----------



## rounser (Jun 6, 2009)

> Which of these would be considered "old school" (OSR)?
> 
> RuneQuest
> Chivalry and Sorcery
> ...



I don't know these games, so can't comment.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Whether they are "old school" is different from whether they are part of the "old school renaissance".

Bear in mind that the OSR, and the OS definition associated with it, comes primarily from a D&D perspective.

_Tunnels & Trolls_ and _Traveller_ are widely recognized as fitting that definition "to a T", to the extent that it applies to games other than D&D.

_Chivalry & Sorcery, Runequest_ and _Dragonquest_ likewise embody design elements departing from the definition. C&S seems simply to lack enough popularity to come in for much analysis, but the first edition would be less of a departure than the second (which C&S fans in my experience judged the better game). The skill system in RQ is the main thing that stands out; that, using the same characteristics for monsters as for characters, and the "resistance formula" struck me in the 1970s as significant innovations. SPI's games stood out even further with detailed rules and attention to fine points of game balance.

Note, however, that 1st/2nd edition RQ in particular is a game with a significant following among people who also enjoy old-style D&D.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 6, 2009)

How much different is a d100 percentile based system (ie. RuneQuest, DragonQuest, etc ...) from a d20 based system (ie. D&D, AD&D, etc ...)?

Or for that matter, any other probability based system executed via dice rolls (ie. 3d6, etc ...).

The main obvious difference is the d20 has a probability granularity in steps of 5%, while the d100 percentile has a probability granularity in steps of 1%.

I doubt "old school" or OSR has anything to do with specific probability granularity in the systems used for combat, skills, etc ...


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

No, but the addition of skill ratings is by itself regarded skeptically in the OSR. I think RQ comes in for more flak than Traveller on that count partly because it is more often (if inaccurately) seen as a "D&D wannabe", and partly because more D&Ders are ignorant of it and imagine it to be more like 3E than it really is. (The new Mongoose version is another matter.)

_Boot Hill_ and _Top Secret_ are established as OS, and they use percentile rolls for most things.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Bear in mind that the OSR, and the OS definition associated with it, comes primarily from a D&D perspective.



What's the definition?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I think RQ comes in for more flak than Traveller on that count partly because it is more often (if inaccurately) seen as a "D&D wannabe", and partly because more D&Ders are ignorant of it and imagine it to be more like 3E than it really is.



I see RQ as being pretty similar to 3e. Both systems are strongly simulationist. RQ is to d100 what 3e is to d20. Unified system - combat, skills and everything else use the same mechanic. All characters, including monsters, built the same way. I loved that feature when I first saw it. Like 3e, RQ is a bit too complex, I always felt Call of Cthulhu was a better expression of the Chaosium system. 

Unlike D&D, it lacks classes and levels so that's a big difference.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> If you use products from the OSR in your game -- whatever it is -- then I would call that playing a part in the OSR! The old game books themselves are obviously not products of the "renaissance", but people dusting them off to play may be. Products of WotC are products of WotC. Some people might conceive of the OSR primarily (or wholly?) in terms of initiatives by hobbyists, but I don't know. It's certainly possible for something to have some OS design elements without being seen by designer or users as part of the OSR.




So if I'm reading that right, system _doesn't_ matter, as long as you're playing in an "old school manner". Except when, of course, it does matter.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 6, 2009)

I suppose if "old school" is based on one's experiences back in youth, then it would be quite subjective.  If this is the case, then my version of "old school" would be quite radically different from many others.

Many years ago when I first played a real game of 1E AD&D, the DM was an older guy who was more of an experienced gamer than us.  He had a "strange" set of house rules at the time for combat, which seemed a lot more "natural" to us than using the combat tables in the 1E DM guide.

Essentially for each "attack roll" whether melee or ranged, the target would do a corresponding "defense roll".  This "defense roll" typically involved rolling a d20 and adding a modifier of 10-AC and one's constitution bonus for a melee attack or one's dexterity bonus for a ranged attack.  A hit occured whenever the "attack roll" was greater than or equal to the "defense roll". 

A "defense roll" against a magical attack was handled on a case by case basis.  Though frequently the "defense roll" against magic typically involved rolling a d20 and adding one's wisdom bonus, depending on the particular spell.  Some spells didn't have any "defense roll" such as magic missile.  If the target was another magic user, the DM allowed the target to do a "counter spell" which typically involved determining the spell cast (ie. intelligence check by rolling under or equal to one's INT score) and then casting the same spell to cancel it out if one knows the spell.  The GM also modified the intelligence check of determining the attacker's spell by subtracting the level of the attacking magic user, which made it harder to determine higher level spells.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

> Unlike D&D, [RQ] lacks classes and levels so that's a big difference.



It also lacks skill points and DCs. There's a really big difference from 3E in the role skill ratings play in the game. If you're using the thief class and weapon proficiencies in AD&D, then nearly all the skills on the RQ2 character sheet have AD&D equivalents (which may not be called "skills"). The whole relationship among players, GM and rules is much more like that in old D&D (or Traveller) than like that in 3E.




> What's the definition?



First, what it's _not_ is something rigid like the specification of Universal Serial Bus. It's more like the definition of a literary genre by the fans.

Basically, a lot of folks got fed up with 3E and found relief in older D&D editions. The objective similarities among all those made it easy for them to communicate with each other about their games. So, there was a start: old D&D is "old school" and 3E is not. The consensus is that 4E also is not.

That's the most important definition; this is overwhelmingly a D&D family affair. The significance comes from WotC's decision to _replace_ the old games with 3E, while keeping the rights to them so that they remained out of print.

However, people found that there were other overlaps in their game preferences. Some started to analyze the phenomenon, looking to identify approaches to play and design that stood out as notable.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 6, 2009)

What's been made clear to me today, in a number of boards, by a number of people, is that many of the people who feel compelled to trumpet the virtue of imagination over rules cannot actually imagine having fun except under their particular rules.

So who has a poorer imagination - you, who feel trapped, constrained, and bound by The Rules, or me, who has happily run the same setting under 5 different rulesets without blinking and without changing the tone of the setting?

Now back to your regularly scheduled stupid edition war.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So if I'm reading that right, system _doesn't_ matter, as long as you're playing in an "old school manner". Except when, of course, it does matter.



You're reading that wrong.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> No, but the addition of skill ratings is by itself regarded skeptically in the OSR. I think RQ comes in for more flak than Traveller on that count partly because it is more often (if inaccurately) seen as a "D&D wannabe", and partly because more D&Ders are ignorant of it and imagine it to be more like 3E than it really is. (The new Mongoose version is another matter.)
> 
> _Boot Hill_ and _Top Secret_ are established as OS, and they use percentile rolls for most things.




I use to play Top Secret a lot.  Never played Boot Hill.

In my D&D and AD&D games back in the day, the DMs frequently houseruled a primitive skills system which typically involved rolling a d20 less than or equal to a particular character stat (such as intelligence, charisma, etc ...) for a success.  The DM would secretly modify the particular (DC) number for success, depending on the situation in question.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Basically, a lot of folks got fed up with 3E and found relief in older D&D editions. The objective similarities among all those made it easy for them to communicate with each other about their games. So, there was a start: old D&D is "old school" and 3E is not. The consensus is that 4E also is not.
> That's the most important definition; this is overwhelmingly a D&D family affair. The significance comes from WotC's decision to _replace_ the old games with 3E, while keeping the rights to them so that they remained out of print.




So the defining quality of Old School Gaming/Old School Renaissance is that it's *NOT* 3e/4e. 

Got it.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Ggroy, I think that was pretty much the intent of the optional skills in the D&D Gazetteer series, late 1E AD&D and 2E AD&D. It's quite different from the very systematic approach in 3E and 4E.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So the defining quality of Old School Gaming/Old School Renaissance is that it's *NOT* 3e/4e.



That's so only in the same way that the "defining quality" of a tiger is that it's not a lion. First, people noticed a distinction; then they came up with a name for it. Detailed taxonomy came along later.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Ggroy, I think that was pretty much the intent of the optional skills in the D&D Gazetteer series, late 1E AD&D and 2E AD&D. It's quite different from the very systematic approach in 3E and 4E.




In what years did these optional skills from the D&D Gazetteer start showing up?

When I was playing my first several "real games" of 1E AD&D, it was a few years before Unearthed Arcana was released.  Among the players and DM, we only had the three core books and Deities & Demigods.  None of us bought anything else, nor did we have any issues of Dragon Magazine.

I have no idea where this particular DM got his "strange" houserules from.  The only semi-plausible scenario I can think of offhand, would be he learned them from another DM he played with previously.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Your DM could have arrived at that approach independently, as I think many people did.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 6, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I see RQ as being pretty similar to 3e. Both systems are strongly simulationist. RQ is to d100 what 3e is to d20. Unified system - combat, skills and everything else use the same mechanic. All characters, including monsters, built the same way. I loved that feature when I first saw it. Like 3e, RQ is a bit too complex, I always felt Call of Cthulhu was a better expression of the Chaosium system.
> 
> Unlike D&D, it lacks classes and levels so that's a big difference.




Maybe 5E D&D will eliminate classes and skills altogether as we know them, and implement everything as "talent trees"?  

Looking at how 4E D&D is structured, the class powers do look a bit like restricted heavily constrained "talent trees".

Maybe they'll even go one step further and eliminate XP and "leveling up" altogether as we know it, and implement a new level system where the DM decides when the players should level up by DM discretion.  (ie.  The True20 style of "leveling").


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

"Leveling up" by DM discretion (at least by varying XP awards) is mentioned in the 4E DMG. In that game, XP seem almost superfluous or even potentially contrary to the designers' view that "the game works better in a lot of ways if you just assume that the characters all gain experience and advance levels at the same rate, even if their players miss a session."

I gather that early in Arneson's seminal Blackmoor campaign, characters graduated from "flunky" to "hero" status when he judged their accomplishments significant enough. It was on an individual basis, though, there being no concept of "the party" as an entity keeping its composition from adventure to adventure. The idea of a consistent "party level" does not figure in early RPGs; different outcomes for different players is part of the "game" aspect.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 6, 2009)

Nellisir said:


> What's been made clear to me today, in a number of boards, by a number of people, is that many of the people who feel compelled to trumpet the virtue of imagination over rules cannot actually imagine having fun except under their particular rules.
> 
> So who has a poorer imagination - you, who feel trapped, constrained, and bound by The Rules, or me, who has happily run the same setting under 5 different rulesets without blinking and without changing the tone of the setting?
> 
> Now back to your regularly scheduled stupid edition war.




I just have to disagree with your aspersion.  I hate the 3rd level Fly spell and all the game conceits that come with it, having to deal with it by level 5+ as a DM and normally as a player.  Do I "lack imagination" because I don't want to design a flat-faced "no flying" encounter once every day so that the wizard doesn't completely squash it?  That I have to tell a player that the character choice he had, his role-playing IMO, is bad and has to be punished/altered simply so that everyone else can participate?

I do hope you will respond, seeing as you've given yourself ample excuse to "drive by" instead of show an actual basis of your statement.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> That's so only in the same way that the "defining quality" of a tiger is that it's not a lion. First, people noticed a distinction; then they came up with a name for it. Detailed taxonomy came along later.




A book is not a lion, and a genre is not a specie*.  The definitions and conclusions of the former are so fluid as to be arbitrary- not only is the Author dead, his library has burned down.  Your analogy would be more apt if tigers were able to change their stripes and lions could turn into bears over time.

*it should be noted that specie actually means coinage, not flora/fauna, but the poetry demanded it.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 6, 2009)

Intense_Interest, I cannot make head or tail of that except perhaps that you don't believe in biological evolution. Who is or are "the former", who is the author, what is the library? It seems but gibberish to me, and certainly does nothing to indicate why you don't like the analogy.

Just as most non-lions are not tigers, so most RPGs that are not 3E/4E D&D are not "old school". Certain games were recognized as being popular in a demographic that also shared a dissatisfaction with certain others. The two sets were given names for convenience in discussion. Critical inquiry into the characteristics to which people were responding followed. The characteristics and responses are pre-existent; examination merely aids explanation.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, we're done here.


----------

