What is "Old School" anyhow?

[jdrakeh]

The reason that I ask the titular question is that, in the "Is TWERPS old school?" thread, several folks discount the game as not being old school based on what seem to be, when taken at face value, personal preferences rather than objective criteria (the sole exception being the date of publication, which is objective enough).

For example, somebody mentioned that TWERPS doesn't qualify as old school because it doesn't really include resolution mechanics for anything other than combat, which made it a non-game -- well, I hate to be the first person to point this out but, by default, that is largely the case with OD&D (the only other thing besuides combat that it actually provides resolution rules for is magic, and TWERPS has those, too).

Likewise, I laid out several commonly cited criteria for 'old school' that TWERPS does meet (criteria which are regularly trotted out as 'proof' of old school pedigree for other games) -- all of which (or most of which) were completely discounted in the case of TWERPS by respondents. Why should these things work in favor of other games being 'old school' but not TWERPS?

Many voters seem to alter their list of what does and doesn't qualify as criteria for old school based on thier feelings about the game being discussed, rather than a set of objective criteria that they apply to all being games considered. Likewise, many voters never offer up objective criteria for exclusion from 'old school', merely stating that something "isn't" and then offering some kind of back-handed praise.

So, what is old school? I think that we, as a community, need to cobble together some kind of an objective (i.e., written) framework before the polls forum can amount to anything more than a very organized game of "Your game sucks! Mine rocks!" in true internet fashion. At the current time, it's little more than that. Wouldn't it be nice to convene a qualified panel of judges to grade 'old school' under a banner of objectivity?

[greentongue]

Not to imply that I am an expert on the subject but here is my take.
===
I believe to be Old Skool a game must provide a structure or framework and give basic mechanics for play.
Beyond this the GM is expected to fill in specifics based on their personal game.
The provided rules usually even say that the GM should extrapolate any additional rules needed for their special cases.
=

[jdrakeh]

Well, I was thinking of something more like a 'check list' or scoring system of defined criteria for evaluating whether or not something was 'old school'.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I don't think you could possibly put together a list that we could all agree on. You might be able to put together a list so that each of us agrees with 60% - 80% of the list and disagrees with 40% - 20% of the list. If you look at all members I would guess that of the total list each of us could make, we might possibly find 10% that we could all agree on.

For instance, to me character classes are old school and characters built by choosing or rolling skills from a list are not old school. But only about 40% - 50% would agree with that. But that is my personal preference and definition. And I am not saying that the presence of character classes means it is old school, to me it also must be many other things too, but are we all going to agree on those other things even if we agree on this one?

Trying to make a list that all of us can agree to is just not going to happen. But like the Supreme Court Justice, I know it when I see it and you know it when you see it, but we don't agree on what we see. I say that A, B and C are old school and D, E, and F are not. You say that A, D and F are old School and B, C and E are not.

Now if you go down to the "Philosophy and OD&D" forum and go thru about a dozen or so threads you can make up a pretty good list, but it will have quite a few contradictory things in the list if you record everything. Part of that is because we come form many places and backgrounds so we don't even agree on the specific meaning of many words/terms. Since we can't even agree on the meaning of all words/terms, how can we agree on definitions using words and terms.

I think that polls are doing a decent job of reflecting the realities, which are that on somethings we are split 50-50 on whether something is old school or not and on others we are nearly 90%-100% in agreement. I don't view that as necessarily a bad thing, it does point out that we really can't be too dogmatic about what is or isn't. We can not even agree on whether or not psionics is old school or not and it is in the supplements.

I think it is the nature of the beast, old school is taking a game and making it your own, putting your own stamp on it. It is partly the game system but mostly it is the way you play it and house rule it to get there. Some games are much more conducive to old school play than other games. All games are loved by someone and all games are hated by someone. I guess all that proves is that we are all individuals, we are all different.

I think most of us are quite comfortable with our personal definitions of old school, but I don't know that all of us want to take the time to try to cast our definition in stone or not. One thing I have noticed in the various fora and discussion is even after all these years, I have read many posts that caused me to revisit things and think about them in a new way and try some new things in my game. That I think is a good thing and something I haven't found on any other forum.

As for the polling place, I have learned so much from those threads that I would really hate to see them go or for people to stop posting in them. I have downloaded and read a whole lot of things because of those and other threads on here in the various fora, for me it has been very productive, thought-provoking and has produced new stuff for my campaign.

[Finarvyn]

Your question goes back to one of my original posts when I first started this forum. I was trying to figure out (1) which games weren't covered in other boards, and (2) which games had a similar philosophy to OD&D and were thus "old school" games.

My early attempts at definition were in terms of age and size/format. I still think there is something to that, but clearly those cannot be the only criteria in the evaluation. When I look at old TSR games of that era I see OS screaming at me, but TSR wasn't the only game company and clearly OS can't be limited to one group of authors.

The "philosophy" of the game is quite vague and makes evaluation very subjective -- a game that I might adore and think is really OS might be on someone else's worst-ever stack.

The "complexity" of the game won't work well either, as some simple games (Amber Diceless) have been argued not to be OS while some complex games (Adventures in Fantasy, RuneQuest, MERP) might be argued to fit the criteria.

My general feeling is that Old School ought to be....
1. A game that has stood the test of time without much alteration.
2. A game that is not rules-heavy and the GM can interpret the game for his own campaign.
3. A game that is not entirely wed to a particular setting, or at least can be used elsewhere.
4. A game that looks like it could have come off of someone's typrwriter, with clean white pages and simple line art.

How's that for a start?

[jrients]

I must politely disagree on your point #1, Finarvyn. I see no need to limit Old School gaming to those that stood the test of time. Something that no one remembers can still be chock full of the the good stuff.

[badger2305]

jrients said:

I must politely disagree on your point #1, Finarvyn. I see no need to limit Old School gaming to those that stood the test of time. Something that no one remembers can still be chock full of the the good stuff.

Bunnies & Burrows is an excellent example of this. Original game and then, MUCH later, the GURPS version. That's it, as far as I know. But B&B is definitely old school.

Oh, heck, so is Space Quest, or Starships and Spacemen, or practically anything from FGU. Come to think of it, B&B was originally from FGU.

[coffee]

admin said:

My general feeling is that Old School ought to be....
1. A game that has stood the test of time without much alteration.
2. A game that is not rules-heavy and the GM can interpret the game for his own campaign.
3. A game that is not entirely wed to a particular setting, or at least can be used elsewhere.
4. A game that looks like it could have come off of someone's typrwriter, with clean white pages and simple line art.

How's that for a start?

That's good; I like it.

And in that light, I'm going to the Polling Place and putting up a poll for the first edition of Champions. Coming from 1981, it doesn't quite make your original cut, but with the above rules comments, it should be okay.

The only sticking point is #2, but I can tap-dance my way around that. It does have a lot of pages, but most of them are not used by every single character -- kind of like the spell lists in D&D. You don't even have to cast spells if you don't want to (i.e.; a Fighting-Man) so you don't need to worry about them.

And the basics of Champions combat are reduced to simple explanations on the character sheet -- there's a note in the text that you don't need more than the character sheets to play. I love it.

[Finarvyn]

jrients said:

I must politely disagree on your point #1, Finarvyn. I see no need to limit Old School gaming to those that stood the test of time. Something that no one remembers can still be chock full of the the good stuff.

I was thinking about a game that remains static, not getting a new edition every couple of years. To me, true OS is a game that is written and pretty much done.

It could be forgotten like B&B almost is, but it's the same game 30 years later. (The B&B 2E isn't a "new edition" at all but a re-format with different font. Same contents.)

[dwayanu]

For a start, I'll assume that no game could be more OS than OD&D and T&T. I mention those together because I think the perspective from which they are essentially the same game may be helpful.

For instance, I think the most significant departure in Metamorphosis Alpha is nothing to do with the setting, but rather the absence of an "experience level" scheme. That in practice is not a big deal; the usual mode of play is scarcely distinguishable from "the dungeon game."

Likewise EPT, for all the ornate and exotic background and despite such mechanical novelties as a rudimentary "skills system," was not played much differently. Those who favored a more NS style could of course (as in the case of D&D) adapt the rules to that approach. Later Tekumel games, though, were designed to address some such demands in the rules structure.

Then we come to games that are pretty old (appearing in the first few years after D&D and T&T) and distinct in some ways from more modern trends -- and that also stood out from the start as something different. En Garde comes immediately to mind. Traveller is another.

To find what makes them (if indeed we agree that they are) OS, we need to consider (A) what they have in common with their forebears; and (B) what makes them different from clearly NS games.

There may be some practical use for such considerations. One might wish to design a truly new game -- one not dependent at all on someone else's "intellectual property" -- that nonetheless satisfies the demands of many OS gamers.

Each of us knows what he likes, and there's no satisfying everyone. Indeed, "house ruling" a game to taste seems a common characteristic of such gamers! However, we may be able to identify qualities on which most of us agree.

More widely useful would be a sense of what makes a scenario (module, setting sourcebook, etc.) satisfyingly OS.

[makofan]

I always think of old school as "not sweating the details"

[ffilz]

Dwaynyu,

I tend to agree with you that old school is not just the rules set, but how you play.

Frank

[dwayanu]

I think "not sweating the details" (aka "rules-lightness") is a common characteristic both of the very OS and of the very NS. The heavy "mechanical simulation" school strikes me as mainly (but not exclusively) a feature of the fin de siecle.

The "very NS" to which I refer is the school that rejects the war-game heritage of RPGs and considers character development and overarching narrative paramount.

The OS view on this point is summed up in the Gospel of Papers & Paychecks:

"The role of a superior DM is NOT to tell a story to his or her players. The DM need only provide an interesting and challenging environment for the players to explore and then administer that environment totally impartially. Superior players will be able to create a character-driven, interactive story from these raw materials, and neither the players nor the GM can tell where the story is headed."

The newer breed of "story-telling game" can be very rules light because it is not so much a game in the formal sense. "Rules" are meant not to be administered impartially but to be "fudged" by the GM in service to a plotline -- so it would be wasteful to write up many of them. Many designers try to have it both ways, succeeding (IMO) to the extent that the rules-driven portion of a game is really an abstract "sub game" with hardly any simulation-based relevance to the action in the story. The Pool is a fine example. Part of the beauty of Amber Diceless is that it is not much "conflicted" as to its aims, and employs rules just where they actually assist the primary enterprise.*

In that light, there's OS with a vengeance in the two GDW games I mentioned. They are also interesting for their structuring of time and action, a departure from the more heavily "tactical" emphasis in D&D and T&T -- and also in most modern RPGs.

En Garde's basic format is distinctively "schematic" or "formal." Players make plans for large chunks of time, getting down to more (and, GM permitting, more flexibly D&D-like) detail when their paths cross. In that, it more closely resembles a traditional board game (e.g., Diplomacy) -- yet the development of a character's career is as central and engaging as in "the dungeon game."

Traveller's rules for interstellar trade provide a prime mode for solitaire play. That's just one of the "games within the game" displaying strong war-game and board-game roots.* Again, there is an interestingly broad time scope in the experience rules (which are concerned with four-year periods).

Here we have approaches that stand out from both earlier and later RPGs. Are there grounds to consider them in any way reflective of OS?

I think there are. They reflect the lack at the time of a rigid notion as to what constitutes the "right" way to play an RPG. Just as D&D had suggested the employment of Chainmail and Outdoor Survival, gamers were using whatever tools they had at hand to adjudicate campaign situations.

A return to that spirit might produce refreshing results, even when a game in general approach and subject matter treads familiar ground.

* For instance, I think the primary function of the "auction" that starts an AD campaign is to get players into the competitive (and often jealous) Amberite spirit.

*Some groups came to focus on just one of those sub-games. That could be off-putting to newcomers who started with a great disadvantage relative to the veterans' expertise. It also splintered the community as groups with different foci had less in common, and increased the importance of the Third Imperium setting as it tended to be all they had in common.

[Finarvyn]

Nicely put, dwayanu. Footnotes, even! :-) You deserve an EXALT for your efforts.

Rules are just guidelines to make the story go, and it's not the GM's story to tell but the entire group's story to experience together.

[wulfgar]

My take:

Very new school rejects mechanical crunchiness in favor of character development.

Very old school rejects mechanical crunchiness in favor of gonzo adventuring wackiness centered around killing, looting, and dying. Character development is optional.

[coffee]

I am increasingly of the opinion that the only thing that makes a game "old school" is the Gamemaster.

Look at the origins of the game: Dave Arneson's medieval Chainmail campaign. Dave was the referee and his decisions were final. Rules Lawyers needn't apply. In fact, Dave said in an interview that he had so ingrained the "decision of the ref is final" rule into his players that when they started running adventures in his game, HE didn't argue with them, either. It just wasn't done.

He showed his game to Gary and Gary started his own game, with the same assumption: The decisions of the DM are final; no arguing.

Sadly enough, it was Gary himself who allowed for the rise of the rules lawyer (albeit unknowingly, I'm sure) with the published strictures against the house-ruling of AD&D.

The problems of "new school" gaming, for me, boil down to this: There are so many rules, it truly takes a rules lawyer to master them all. And once that happens, you don't have an old-school game any more. You could, if that person is him/herself the referee, but how many times have we seen that happen?

This all goes back to what Gary said about how we need good DM's to keep the hobby alive. If we allow DM's to blindly follow what's in the book, instead of blaze their own trail, the hobby won't be worth keeping alive.

This may sound like edition bashing; it's not. I knew people way back in AD&D 1st ed. who DMed that way. (We stayed out of their games, once we got to know their type.) These are the "But the book says...!" types. No accountability.

And that, really, is my main point (I now realize). The Old School DM is responsible for his campaign. He is also responsible to it -- if it comes to a choice between making the player happy or keeping his game intact, the Old School DM rules in favor of his campaign. Same with conflicts between the campaign and the rules as written -- the campaign wins.

In Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein observed that Responsibility and Authority must be equal, or else a balancing would take place. This is what I mean here. The DM has to have the Authority to run his game the way he sees fit, house rules and all. But he must also take on the Responsibility to do so fairly, for the enjoyment of all participants. He can't blame the rules; whether he can blame the dice or not depends on the group.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the motto of the Old School DM should be: The Buck Stops Here.


Anyway, that's how I see it.

[sham]

That's some particularly insightful stuff, Coffee.

I agree that with a rules light approach, you limit potential rules-lawyering. For this method to work, you need a dedicated referee who has earned the trust of his players. Players who are joining in the campaign to have fun, and perhaps work together to overcome obstacles and challenges, and achieve some common goals, rules be d**ned.

[dwayanu]

Yes, that may be the biggie. I had occasion some time ago to observe on another board that if I did use C&C (which I don't), then it shouldn't be an issue because players -- much less non-players! -- have no business even knowing most of what goes on behind the screen.

"Don't try to lay no 'boojee-woojee' on the king of rock 'n' roll!"

In my gang back in the day, typically only the ref had a copy of the store-bought rules. He was the ref because he was the fellow who bought the game, and he taught the rest of us how to play. Shortage of cash among kids was probably the fundamental reason.

Even when there were multiple D&D refs, Tom's campaign was clearly "Tom's game," and so on. Even (rare) trips to conventions didn't change that, because we weren't big on tournaments.

Interestingly, another fellow (strictly an AD&Der*) and I once participated in a RuneQuest tournament, on different teams, and the "newbie" to RQ did better! (I think one gets rusty from too much time as the GM.)

On that same trip, we had a TPK-but-one in an "open" session. The one survivor was an assassin who killed all the other PCs. Sure, there could have been "rules-lawyer" objections to how it went down. The real objection was the DM's outrageous favoritism; the whole scenario was just an exercise in wish fulfillment for his buddy, not a fairly adjudicated game.

*That's an exaggeration; he sometimes played in "old D&D" and other games, but preached the AD&D gospel.