Sometimes I think we're too divisive as a group

[thegreyelf]

...and I think it hurts us.

For example, I was looking at some of the polls about "is x game old school," and it shocked me some of the, well, frankly, elitist responses on there. It seems as though the definition we've adopted of "old school" includes only TSR games and supplements that had Gygax directly involved in the writing.

I think that's a tad narrow-minded. I understand James Maliszewski's division of the "eras" of D&D, and think it makes a lot of sense, particularly for our purposes here. This isn't directed at James, who has never shown any elitism that I've noticed, and has always been willing to revisit his conceptions as needed. I'm simply using his breakdown of the eras as a benchmark, here. That being said, I think it's a bit nuts to claim that, for example, AD&D second edition is not "old school." Is it D&D the way we idealize it? Absolutely not...but honestly, it's really not all that different from first edition, either, aside from the organization and presentation of the rules, and the way it looks.

I'm just saying, we shouldn't be examining these things based on whether we like them. It makes us as a community seem divisive and aloof to the rest of the community. The definition of Old School changes as the gaming subculture gets older, as well. To me 2e is old school. Maybe that's just because I was 13 or 14 when it came out. But to someone, somewhere, before long, 3.0 is going to be old school, just like Metallica is now played on classic rock radio.

Dunno what I expected to accomplish with this. Just some random meanderings which I may port to my blog in an expanded format later. Blast away at them as you will.

[Finarvyn]

Dec 22, 2009 12:18:51 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I was looking at some of the polls about "is x game old school," and it shocked me some of the, well, frankly, elitist responses on there. It seems as though the definition we've adopted of "old school" includes only TSR games and supplements that had Gygax directly involved in the writing.

I think that's a tad narrow-minded.

You bring up some good points. I think there are two distinct things going on in my mind when it comes to old games.
1. Games I want to discuss here -- mostly Gygax/Arneson/TSR games from the 1970-80 era.
2. Games I don't want to discuss here -- mostly games with their own boards or games not really in the spirit of #1.

My own intent in creating this board was to place an emphasis on OD&D with some spillover to TSR games that I loved from the good old days. That's part of my thinking when I shuffle some posts into obscure places like "non-TSR classics" because I prefer to de-emphsize them here. That's a bit afield of your original point about "old school" or not, but it does give my general position about stuff like that.

Part of why I encouraged those polls was to help the group define what was okay and off-limits within these boards. At the start I wasn't sure if others shared my vision for the board and we had some interesting OS discussions. For example, AD&D is really outside of the scope of this board becasue DF does it better but it's certainly Old School in its philosophy. Same with black-book Traveller and many other games. At one point I had considered limiting the boards to games prior to a certain date, or made by TSR only, or similar artificial limitations -- eventually it evolved into what we have now. Had I imposed any or all of my original conditions we would have lost out on wonderful discussion about S&W, Fight On!, Carcosa and others, so I think our current focus is aimed in the right direction.

I don't think folks bother to read or post in the OS/not polls much anymore. I think it was mostly done by a few posters who have since moved on. I pondered making those posts all vanish, but when I do stuff like that then someone gets all annoyed about it so I haven't bothered.

However, your point is well taken.

Just my two coppers.

[greyharp]

I don't think it's elitist to prefer one game over others, or one playing style over another. For some, thinking only of D&D when talking old school is a matter of history and numbers, D&D being the "original" rpg, and over the last 35 years the most popular.

I've seen arguments over whether old school is about particular games, or whether it's about playing styles. Personally I think it's both. Certainly the growth of the "story" in adventures, and an enormous amount of character options (both starting late in 1e, but going full steam ahead in 2e) was a change in both the rules and the style of play. Yes core 2e is much like 1e, but there's no denying that with all it's extras it was a different beastie altogether, in spirit at least.

I actually think that the growth of the OSR has seen a lessening of arguments and divisiveness on the various boards, within the broad OS community, although I can understand that outsiders would see such a movement as possibly elitist. Liking one game or an era of games over another, especially older ones, will always make one open to the charge of elitism, even if it's plain and simple personal preference. Blimey, even if you like other games too! Funny how people who love the newer games over the old and do so with a passion, aren't considered to be elitist. There's a whole contradiction that probably could be pulled apart by someone with a background in psychology.

Many people hate them, but the fact is labels are helpful. They help us define our thinking and common opinion, which is handy in discussion. James Maliszewski has done a great job of defining "old school". Others would make the phrase meaningless by constantly shifting it's defining boundaries. If there is a definite period where rules and playing style changed, it's neither wrong or bad to label it, nor to like and prefer one period over another.

[blissinfinite]

I guess that's why I try to use the term 'Classic D&D' over Old School. Tons of games (and not all of them of TSR origin) are or soon will be considered OS but Classic has a connotation of being the Original.

Like Greyelf said, for players that came in during 2e, for them, in this day and age, that is 'Old School'. I think for me all the games that came out during that initial explosion, which falls within James M's 'Golden Age' has that classic sensibility, but that is my experience.

I think all the debate that help define these eras and terms has been good. And I'm fine with where it currently is at.

[geoffrey]

Dec 22, 2009 15:22:27 GMT -6 blissinfinite said:

I guess that's why I try to use the term 'Classic D&D' over Old School. Tons of games (and not all of them of TSR origin) are or soon will be considered OS but Classic has a connotation of being the Original.

Me, too. I like "classic D&D", and I like "perennial D&D".

Here is a (non-mathematically exact) list of the games that I consider to be classic/perennial D&D:

any version of D&D or AD&D published by TSR
Hackmaster 4th edition
Castles & Crusades
Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game
OSRIC
Labyrinth Lord
Spellcraft & Swordplay
Swords & Wizardry (Core and Whitebox)

I don't think any of the above is objectively "better" than any of the others. I consider them all basically the same game, each with different bells and whistles.

For me "the other side" of the "dividing line" is 3rd edition and 4th edition D&D. Those are different games.

[chgowiz]

James M has done a good job defining "his" old school, just like Jeff Rients has done a good job defining his, just like Finarvyn has done a good job defining his... etc. At the end of the day "old school" is such a personal definition, I don't worry about it so much aside from applying a "duck" test for my own benefit.

[James Maliszewski]

If "old school" is so flexible a term that it will one day include, say, Third Edition, then it's a meaningless term, or at least a useless one for any serious discussion. Now, it may very well be a meaningless term, but that's not what's in question here. For my purposes, "old school" either has meaning independent of the experiences of individual gamers or we should simply stop using it and find a different term. I dislike "classic," "vintage," and, worst of all, "legacy," because they sound like marketing rather than descriptive terms and they all have a faint whiff of dismissiveness to them, at least to my ears. I could stomach "classical," I suppose, but why invent a new term when we already have one that most people, even those who reject our preferred style of play, already understands?

FWIW, I consider 2e, mechanically anyway, old school. As Geoffrey noted, the real dividing line is between the TSR and WotC eras, with the post-2000 versions being entirely new games rather than just updates to previous editions. Now, there's a lot of stuff that came out during the 2e that I don't think qualifies as old school, but then that's true of the 1e era as well. Mechanically, 2e is welcome in the clubhouse, even if some of the philosophy that animated much of the game is alien to the Old Ways.

[thegreyelf]

I don't know that I agree that flexibility in the term leads to it being meaningless...as I said, Metallica is now played on classic rock radio. That doesn't necessarily make "classic rock" a meaningless term. It's just that as people move forward, as the elder statesmen get older and the younger generation become elder statesmen, it's that younger generation that redefines existing terms.

It may well be that at some point in the future (definitely not now, but in 10 or 20 years' time) 3.x will be "old school," and a new term will be coined to refer to what is now old school. Or what we have now will stay old school and a new term will be coined to refer to 3.x. Actually, James, your breakdown of the eras of gaming may well be a hint of what's to come in the way we classify the games we play.

FWIW, I think I generally agree that, as far as D&D is concerned, TSR/WotC is the breaking point between old school and contemporary. I just don't like to see the OSR divide among ourselves, because despite our personal preferences of games/play styles, we're stronger together than divided. Does this, however, mean that RPGs in general are on the same dividing line? I think I'd use White Wolf as the marker for other games...Vampire the Masquerade was definitely a line where design philosophy changed, and a lot of games followed suit after that.

[James Maliszewski]

Dec 23, 2009 9:57:24 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

It may well be that at some point in the future (definitely not now, but in 10 or 20 years' time) 3.x will be "old school," and a new term will be coined to refer to what is now old school.

If that's the case, fretting over what is and is not "old school" is pointless, since, eventually, everything will be old school. I think too many people put too strong an emphasis on the "old" part of the term, when it's -- for me anyway -- the "school" that matters and that represents the point of divergence between the Old Ways and the new. I think it's perfectly reasonable to call, say, Mutant Future or Encounter Critical old school games, despite their vintage, while at the same time denying that even 10 or 20 years in the future, Third Edition will never qualify as such.

I just don't like to see the OSR divide among ourselves, because despite our personal preferences of games/play styles, we're stronger together than divided.

I keep hearing people say such things, but, honestly, what do you mean when you say this? Who's being excluded or left out because we've elevated our personal preferences to the level of dogma?

[chgowiz]

Dec 23, 2009 9:57:24 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I don't know that I agree that flexibility in the term leads to it being meaningless...as I said, Metallica is now played on classic rock radio. That doesn't necessarily make "classic rock" a meaningless term. It's just that as people move forward, as the elder statesmen get older and the younger generation become elder statesmen, it's that younger generation that redefines existing terms.

Now, see... Metallica is a PERFECT example of how something 'evolved' and some people say it's better and some say it's worse. Those of us who like Metallica pre-Black will not agree with Black-after being played in the same vein. Sound familiar? But it's going to come down to personal preferences and I'm a bit reluctant to give your definition, my definition, James' definition or anyone's definition prevalence over the other just because it is a personal thing.

It may well be that at some point in the future (definitely not now, but in 10 or 20 years' time) 3.x will be "old school," and a new term will be coined to refer to what is now old school. Or what we have now will stay old school and a new term will be coined to refer to 3.x. Actually, James, your breakdown of the eras of gaming may well be a hint of what's to come in the way we classify the games we play.

Dec 23, 2009 9:57:24 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

FWIW, I think I generally agree that, as far as D&D is concerned, TSR/WotC is the breaking point between old school and contemporary.

I personally think TSR jumped the shark from "old school" to "storytelling" about the time that Dragonlance and et al became the driving force behind the game. 2E was just the stake in the heart - while the core books may have had what I consider old school pedigree, the onslaught of splatbooks and settings drove it way into what you call contemporary - if original is the granddaddy of old school D&D, then 2E, IMO, is the granddam of contemporary.

The upcoming TARGA FAQ has some thoughts on this that I'd like to share:

What is "old school gaming"?

Do you have a few hours? "Old School Gaming" means a lot of things to a lot of different people, but there are some commonalities that we all seem to share:

* Old school gaming relies on the rules being guidelines than the rules being the be-all, end-all final word. The person running the game (GM, DM, Referee) has the "final say" on how any rules question is resolved, but a good GM is fair to the players and the campaign.

* It's more about you playing your character than playing your character sheet. The fewer the rules you have, the less you have (to be distracted by) on your character sheet. You always have the final say on what your character does, no GM can/should railroad you into a specific action.

* The feel of the game is more "average person" than "superheroic powerful beings". The world around you isn't fair, balanced or particularly interested in your heroics. You earn your name through overcoming obstacles and opponents.

* The GM will run a game that is less based on a strict plot of "encounters" or "acts" and more based on reactions to your decisions and what you do, with a healthy dollop of randomness thrown in. That's not to say you won't participate in adventures and grand epics, but an old school game is less concerned about a cinematic "plot" and more about people having fun exploring worlds (and possibly getting rich/glory in the bargain.)

[geoffrey]

Dec 23, 2009 10:13:12 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

I think it's perfectly reasonable to call, say, Mutant Future or Encounter Critical old school games, despite their vintage...

Encounter Critical was published in 1978 and written by Hank Riley. (And, BTW, the Encounter Critical module entitled Asteroid 1618 was written in 1981 by A. J. Putman.)

Now we have practical joker S. John Ross who claims to have written Encounter Critical just a few years ago, in spite of the fact that EC has been played for over 30 years by gamers the world over. Even more recently, Jeff Rients got into the joke by claiming to have written Asteroid 1618 in 2007!

I have it on good authority that both S. John Ross and Jeff Rients have gotten quite wealthy off of the sales of EC and of Asteroid 1618. Just multiply the cover prices of those two items by all their sales, and you will see why the two of them live in freakin' yachts in the Caribbean (all the while laughing at the rest of us for falling for their hoaxes).

Will we ever learn?

[eris]

Dec 23, 2009 14:18:32 GMT -6 @chgowiz said:

The upcoming TARGA FAQ has some thoughts on this that I'd like to share:

What is "old school gaming"?

Do you have a few hours? "Old School Gaming" means a lot of things to a lot of different people, but there are some commonalities that we all seem to share:

* Old school gaming relies on the rules being guidelines than the rules being the be-all, end-all final word. The person running the game (GM, DM, Referee) has the "final say" on how any rules question is resolved, but a good GM is fair to the players and the campaign.

* It's more about you playing your character than playing your character sheet. The fewer the rules you have, the less you have (to be distracted by) on your character sheet. You always have the final say on what your character does, no GM can/should railroad you into a specific action.

* The feel of the game is more "average person" than "superheroic powerful beings". The world around you isn't fair, balanced or particularly interested in your heroics. You earn your name through overcoming obstacles and opponents.

* The GM will run a game that is less based on a strict plot of "encounters" or "acts" and more based on reactions to your decisions and what you do, with a healthy dollop of randomness thrown in. That's not to say you won't participate in adventures and grand epics, but an old school game is less concerned about a cinematic "plot" and more about people having fun exploring worlds (and possibly getting rich/glory in the bargain.)

Check, check, check, check! Chgowiz I think you've nailed it on the head, for me at least.

1. Rulings over rules
2. PLAYER characters over player CHARACTERS
3. Average man against an uncaring world
4. Explore the setting's landscape, not your PC's internal landscape

Old School, to me at least, is a lot more about those four above points than any sort of game mechanics. I truly believe that when I run a game using d20 mechanics, for example, I can still be running an "old school" game if I: ignore most of the rules and rely on GM rulings; use skills to inform the *player*, but rely on the player to do things, not his character sheet; stay at relatively low power levels for PCs, keeping the world big and bad; and run the game in a sandbox where the emphasis is on exploration and discovery, not telling a specific story (or even for the purpose of creating a story).

That's how I see it anyway.

[tavis]

Dec 23, 2009 14:56:40 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Encounter Critical was published in 1978 and written by Hank Riley.

Right, that's three full years after the publication of the thief class in Supplement I introduced a skill system and ended the old-school era! James M. was clearly referring to this post-February 1975 vintage, rather than giving any credence to the ludicrous claims of this S. John character.

[geoffrey]

Makes sense, tavis. ;D

[harami2000]

Game mechanics /and/ game play (style)...

Setting aside deja vu I'll pull in the ol' GNS theory for some random thoughts and posit that whereas D&D (up to 2e, at least) is usually labeled as "gamist", that in reality there was sufficient flexibility to - and, indeed, early on it was required to - bolt on additional rules, rulings and manner in which play occurred.
This could be deemed to be fundamentally different to a more /entrenched/ gamist, narrativist or simulationist approach which lacks the ability to flex according to /real-life/ play style. (Understandable also when game designers have online play in reductionist mode as part of their remit, but that will result in a fundamental shift in experience to most players).

> chgowiz wrote:
> * Old school gaming relies on the rules being guidelines than the rules being the be-all, end-all final word. The person running the game (GM, DM, Referee) has the "final say" on how any rules question is resolved, but a good GM is fair to the players and the campaign.

*nods* simple restatement of the position of "referee" being /fundamentally/ in control, even if that can often be hands-off to the n'th degree in actual play. I'd probably limit "fair" to "not out to kill the players in /too/ adversarial a manner" - unless that's part of the "fun" in a given (short term!) context.

The "rules are guidelines" / "don't just roll dice to see whether you succeed, actually /roleplay/" mentality immediately opens potential horizons beyond the pure number-crunching gamist approach and frustrated rules lawyering.

> * It's more about you playing your character than playing your character sheet. The fewer the rules you have, the less you have (to be distracted by) on your character sheet. You always have the final say on what your character does, no GM can/should railroad you into a specific action.

No problems with lots of tables on the GMs side; those are guidelines and also good for inspiration: therefore it's not just "the fewer rules there are", but more that those don't get in the way of play (for example, by making players feel obliged to comb through all the rules for character creation, cross-referencing with game mechanics in order to maximise a character build).
Both myself and various groups never found Rolemaster (for example) particularly "distracting" regardless of lots of numbers on the character sheet; it being strongly encouraged that those helped flesh out the character's background, motivations and aspirations as those developed rather than designing a (stereotyped) character around optimised stats and skills. Neither do such "numbers" inherently get in the way of in-character play.

> * The feel of the game is more "average person" than "superheroic powerful beings".

Perhaps not quite so "average" always, but at least removing the /expectation/ of being superheroic-powerful (or pretty much there for inexplicable reasons a dozen short sessions after 100 years sitting in the elvish forest).
The Angry Villager rule still applies in its broadest sense.

> The world around you isn't fair, balanced or particularly interested in your heroics. You earn your name through overcoming obstacles and opponents.

*nods* But not necessarily on a "level basis" alone.

Unbalanced play is one I'd stick on the "preferred" list which makes it amusing that the likes of Dave Arneson in later years was a champion of balanced play.
By all means drop hints to the characters whose background or general wisdom might indicate that your low level characters walking into the giants lair is a bad idea but don't stop them: however, if a giant should just happen to walk by, so be it - flee or risk death... there is no "level unlock" key on the world as a whole outwith the Moria principle of delving deeper yielding greater risk (to which WLD's approach is anathema).

If our would-be "heroes" suffer a minor set-back such as falling through a flame trap into a deep pit of rust monsters, feel free to grimace then get on with it.

> * The GM will run a game that is less based on a strict plot of "encounters" or "acts" and more based on reactions to your decisions and what you do, with a healthy dollop of randomness thrown in. That's not to say you won't participate in adventures and grand epics, but an old school game is less concerned about a cinematic "plot" and more about people having fun exploring worlds (and possibly getting rich/glory in the bargain.)

...Cinematic plot / "railroading".

02c/ymmv in passing anyhow, fwiw.
David.