What makes a game "old school"?

[Stonegiant]

coffee said:

ffilz said:

Hmm, if boxed set is post-old school, then OD&D itself doesn't count...unless you use the earliest release...

Frank

Sigh.

I knew somebody would bring that up, yet I hit Post before I mentioned it. My bad.

D&D certainly came in a box, but it didn't include dice or an adventure. What I was trying to get at was that the later 'boxed sets' (or perhaps 'complete boxed sets' would be a better term) were packaged so that you didn't have to buy anything else and could get started right away.

Whereas with old school games, you had to get some dice, create an adventure (or dungeon, or whatever) and only then could you start.

My point was that old school games had a higher DIY factor then the later games did.


(I really gotta stop posting after midnight...)

That well lets see 2nd edition BH would be eliminated for the box, Gamma World 1st edition would be eliminated. Grodog may be able to answer this question but I thought some of the OD&D OCE sets did include the same dice as were found in the Holmes set.

Honestly I don't like the box clause, but thats just me and it is Fin's board and he can include or exclude what he likes ;D Its all good to me!

[coffee]

My point about the 'box clause' as you call it is that it represents a distinct stage in the development of the RPG as a product. Since you don't like it (and I totally respect your viewpoint) you don't have to use it.

It's just a convenient way for me to differentiate between 'old school' and later works.

Note, also, that by this definition, AD&D would also be considered old school, as would 2nd ed and even (shudder) 3rd ed. Hmm, maybe I should add a 'soft cover' clause, too...

Or maybe I'll just have a beer. Yes, that seems more likely.

[Finarvyn]

The "box" v. "no box" question is a tough one, because not all older games were boxless and not all newer games have a box.

This reminds me of a discussion I heard on the radio about a month ago. Seems a town (somewhere in New England, USA, I think) wanted to put a ban on "fast food" establishments in their downtown area. The idea was to keep things upscale. Quickly they realized a problem -- what constitutes "fast food"?

Some suggested that the food must be delivered by a server but that would eliminate any buffet-style places, many of which are upscale enough to be acceptable to the town council.

Others suggested that it had to be served on real plates with real forks and knives, but some places like The Patio (ribs) serve it that way and aren't really "fast food" either.

I'm not sure they ever came up with a definitive answer.

"Old school" may be like that. It may not be the box, it may not be the colored pictures and fonts, it may not be the hardback/softback printing, it may be an attitude. And an attitude is really hard to identify.

I kind of like the idea of associating a date to "old school" but that certainly cuts out any retro clone games which clearly are trying to duplicate the atmosphere and style of the games of yesteryear.

Hmmm. Back to pondering the issue.....

[Stonegiant]

Hey Fin-

Maybe the answer is to let the masses vote on each game case by case, possibly a poll. Because like you said its not a tangible aspect that defines old school but the spirit in which the game was designed.

[Finarvyn]

That's a good idea. Maybe I should set up a special "polling place" where we can put polls and let the masses decide. :-)

[coffee]

Y'know what? I still think of Top Secret as old school.

I've gotten to the point where even I don't like my "box or no box" differentiation. ;D

I'm really not sure what makes a game 'old school', or even if I mean the same thing when I use that term as you do.

But I do know some of the things that make a game NOT old school:

* Any game where the GM's hands are tied. 3rd edition is good for this; there are rules upon rules, and if you (as the GM) don't do things specifically as they are presented in the book, some player (and we all know one like that, don't we?) is going to jump on it.

* Any game where the setting is a given and departure is frowned upon. The second printing of Traveller is my main gripe here; everything (from any publisher) that has come after merely reinforces it.

When Traveller was released in '77, there was no official setting. You could do what you wanted. Now THAT is old school. By the time of the second printing in '80, there was this whole 'GDW Third Imperium', with sourcebooks and a history and such.

And I didn't own any of it.

So when people wanted to play in my Traveller game, they couldn't get it through their heads that they couldn't just bop on down to the Spinward Marches, because it didn't exist in my game.



Okay, so it's only two things, but they're big things.

I'm not sure if you can ever find 'old school' in a set of rules. It's more of an attitude, the attitude that the great GM's of old had: "It's my game and I'll do what makes the game work" probably sums it up best.

I guess if you want my opinion on what makes a game old school, you can just read my sig.

[stonetoflesh]

"Old-school" to me really suggests a looser, DIY/toolbox mentality that applies equally to rulebooks and setting materials. Referees were required and encouraged to creatively fill gaps in the rules (intentional or otherwise) and make the game their own; it seems that the "by-the-book" mentality that later plagued AD&D and its contemporaries is completely absent here. A lot of early products-- Metamorphosis Alpha, EPT, Arduin, Judges Guild, Gamma World 1e, etc.-- showed what could be done by creative application of and/or elaboration on the basic rules provided in OD&D, and preserved the freewheeling DIY aesthetic.

Same with settings; referees who opted to pick up early works on the Wilderlands, Tekumel, Arduin, Blackmoor, etc. weren't inundated with details and minutiae; these settings differed in the amount and type of information they provided, but each left plenty of room for the creative referee to adapt and shape the material to suit his own campaign.

[tgamemaster1975]

I think you should add a board for Empire of the Petal Throne. Just sayin'.

[greentongue]

nightlamp said:

"Old-school" to me really suggests a looser, DIY/toolbox mentality that applies equally to rulebooks and setting materials. Referees were required and encouraged to creatively fill gaps in the rules (intentional or otherwise) and make the game their own; it seems that the "by-the-book" mentality that later plagued AD&D and its contemporaries is completely absent here.

That is how I think of it.

If there is a specific rule for every little thing or the number of rats in the cellar is documented.
That in my mind has moved beyond "Old Skool".
=

[crimhthanthegreat]

Anybody want to take a stab at summarizing all that has been posted so far, with things that contradict each other highlighted and placed next to each other? Someone that actually knows how to edit and rewrite without messing up the intent.

[coffee]

I have a new theory about what makes a game old school:

Look at the character sheet.

First of all, if it has one, that's leaning away from old school. Some old school games had one. But if it's more than a page long, that's a big red flag that it's NOT old school.

I'm just sayin', is all.

[crimhthanthegreat]

coffee said:

I have a new theory about what makes a game old school:

Look at the character sheet.

First of all, if it has one, that's leaning away from old school. Some old school games had one. But if it's more than a page long, that's a big red flag that it's NOT old school.

I'm just sayin', is all.

Have an Exalt coffee, I quite agree, and those old school games that had one, for the most part those came later, not at the beginning. We have been playing since the beginning and have never used a premade sheet, a pencil (yes pencil not pen, ya gotta be able to erase and change things) and a blank sheet of paper and we are good to go. We prefer college rule notebook paper.

Old school means that you can erase anything you write down, since things change throughout the game.

[coffee]

crimhthanthegreat said:

Old school means that you can erase anything you write down, since things change throughout the game.

I totally agree! And that sounds like a line destined for a sig file.

[dwayanu]

Back when RuneQuest was new, I thought of it as "new school" -- and really got into the new approach. What was that? It was having (a) a standard, general mechanism (% ratings); (b) a lot of defined skills; and (c) a second general mechanism (the Resistance Table) for all sorts of non-skill situations. Looking back, I see it as a forerunner of Champions (which added the "game currency" of character points).

That reminds me of Villains & Vigilantes, in my book the premier "old-school" superhero game.

Traveller, despite its 2d6 "system," seemed much more "ad hoc." I think of The Fantasy Trip as being in the same neighborhood. I didn't find the Imperium (presented in supplements, not the basic set) overbearing. To me, MegaTraveller marked a big shift.

Top Secret was like AD&D in covering a few topics in detail, with a lot of variety in approach (evidenced in the number of tables). The HTH combat rules (heavily overhauled in the second edition) were as notorious among my crew as the unarmed-combat rules in the DMG.

Even RQ concentrated on "wargame" concerns. The DMG was at the time a relatively comprehensive cornucopia when it came to treating other topics (although a nod is due, e.g., Chivalry & Sorcery).

As a really rough rule of thumb, perhaps "old school" rules tend to cover a smaller set of situations in more peculiar ways (such as a different matrix for each); "new school" rules tend to get a lot of mileage from a basic mechanism, adding complexity by covering more cases in detail.

In OS, situations beyond the primary focus are left to the referee's improvisation. In NS, there's more often a rule to look up -- and there's a heavy presumption that a "universal" mechanism should be the approach of choice. If the DM in a "D20" game "eyeballs" odds for a d6 or d% roll, player objections are (I suspect) likely to ensue.

[ffilz]

Dwayanu,

Good analysis. I think that's the first time I've seen a rules based analysis of old school that hit something that really is a difference. It does point out though that it's really a way of playing, and the way the rules text comes into play is presenting a unified system (or sufficiently so) that you can find a way to resolve any situation that comes up using the rules text as opposed to winging something.

In that sense, I think my late 1970s through early 1980s RuneQuest and Traveller play was still old school in that I would just sometimes propose a roll to resolve something rather than trying to fit the resolution into some mechanic, whereas in recent years with D20, I have looked for a skill to apply or something.

But I think old school still is more than just that rules difference. I think it came across in how we role played. Some have used the term hack 'n slash, but I don't think it's just that. A big difference I see these days is "character concept" (which really came into my play with Champions). Previously, you rolled up a character and made the best of it. The character developed personality as play progressed.

Frank

[coffee]

ffilz said:

Previously, you rolled up a character and made the best of it. The character developed personality as play progressed.

Frank

Very good point. That's the way I learned to play. The few times I tried to come up with a character concept and then play it, it never worked out.

I just prefer 'finding' the character as I play. There have been times I've gotten rid of the character, but there have been many more times I've been pleasantly surprised with what I've come up with on the fly.

[greentongue]

-= copied from the "Is RQ Old School" poll. =-

Keeping in mind that once I got my hands on a copy of RQ1, I basicly stopped playing D&D.

In my opinion, "Old Skool" is GAMING. The newer games introduced Simulation and Storytelling.

This is why I believe RQ is one of the original games to create a divide between "Old" and "New". It is a simulation and not a "game".

The more "Realistic" the rules try to be, the farther from "Old Skool" they get, IMHO.

I miss GAMING.
(Which is why Savage Worlds is my current favorite.)
=

[doc]

What makes a game "old school?"

I would say a game that forces the players to fill in the blanks. When a game consists of bare bones rules that makes a DM have to create their own world and the players define exactly what each of their roles are, THAT'S old school.

When every little thing isn't spelled out and the DM has to make judgement calls rather than flipping to page 48, chart 6, section 5, subsection 42, THAT'S old school.

When players actually have to (gasp) ROLE PLAY social interactions rather than saying "I rolled a 12 on Diplomacy and add my +11 bonus to it," THAT'S old school.

When everything you need to play is included in a single paperback book rather than hundreds of books filled with countless feats, skills, spells, and magical items, THAT'S old school.

A group of grown men and women sitting around a kitchen table filled with graph paper, slinging poorly molded dice, and quoting Monty Python and Conan the Barbarian? THAT'S old school!



Doc (not a fan of 3.5)

[coffee]

Very well said, doc! Have an exalt on me.

[doc]

lol, thanks. I'm still trying to get a handle on the whole "exalt/smite" thing.

Doc

[coffee]

Yeah, it took me by surprise, too. All of a sudden I had three karma. Thankfully, one of them mentioned it (like I did for you), and it all kinda made sense.

Still not sure what it's for, though...