What is Old School Gaming?

[Evernevermore]

This is the style of gaming I personally enjoy.

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.)

(borrowed from the pre release of the next edition of the  TARGA FAQ)

[Knight of the Great White North]

Is this really about the "old school" or the differences on GMing?

Rules are rules no matter the "school" its the GM that can use them to make your life nice and easy or a living hell. The old D&D, from what I remember, was pretty specific on what you could or could not do. The later versions seem to relax those rules and while adding more for complexity, seem to balance somewhere. Being "fair"? I am not sure fair really creeps in anywhere. Rules are rules. Yes there are the "yes I just critted you, but you dont know that since I am behind a screen and I dont want to wait for you to make a new character" GMs. I guess thats "breaking" the rules. But, it allows the game to continue.

 

* 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.

I dont get it. You play the character as you feel it should be played. It depends on how good or what kind of role player you are. The sheet is your guide. You really cant separate the two.

Well to move the story along... a good gm can make you do just this and make you think you did it on your own... The words I dread hearing "Are you really sure you want to do that ?" followed by "Ok.. roll initiatives " .

But as "old school" goes.. I would tend to think its the "older" rules.. Going back to where things were more set and rigid and you didnt have as many options.  And there were things that held you back and kept you in a place..

When I hear "old school", I personally think back to when I first started playing D&D. Where yes you can multi-class, as long as you did it from the beginning. Clerics were using non-edged weapons, and THACO.  The major thinking restructuring that I had to get around when I first heard it. One of my first questions was " Why dont they just change it to make it all positive numbers?"
But I got along with the system then as I do now with 3.5... But I have to say I do like the more modern version better..

As for the "feel" of the game, all but one started out the same. Any GM can set this up. No matter what the system or version. I have always started out lower than dirt and fighting anything bigger than a fly seemed to have some kind of danger of dying in it. Then you get better..and the game gets harder no matter what "school" you are from.

The last point is where GM's will differ no matter what "school" they are coming from. A "bad" GM will, in my opinion, have a set plot of encounters and be rigid in its progression. While  a "good" gm will be able to take the party's ineviable turn from the story path and be able to go with it and steer them back to the path he has created. I feel if you are just starting out, the rigidity will be there until you know the system or you have put in alot of homework and second guessing your third guesses to what a party may or may not do. And overall, this is not about the "school" you are from but the kind of GM you are.

[Evernevermore]

Were talking even older D&D and it sounds like you've already been playing old school. Ill post more on my lunch break

[Knight of the Great White North]

How old is old? lol.. I started around 1980ish... all I really remember from that was we had 3 sets of dice for the group, we seemed to level on a regular basis, multi classing was a pain but I went through it and ran another cleric..and we just did dungeon crawls and did our own mapping...and I think we had 2 sets of books as well... not a lot to go on, but we did have marathon sessions... start friday night and go until sometime sunday evening...ahh the days of youth and energy...

[Evernevermore]

We're talking predominately first generation rpgs - like classic D&D, Empire of the Petal Throne, Classic Traveller, etc.

The rules are an issue as many of this generation of games leave some of the rules up to the DMs rulings. This is important but its also the weak spot as a bad DM can screw the game easily here.

[Knight of the Great White North]

A bad DM can mess up any game.. but I do see your point where the rules were as new as the game and the wrong interpretation of the rules can make a mess.. But with any "new" rpg, it takes a little time to get used to the new rules and get comfortable with them. This is happening even in newer games. I think daBard has revamped the burning wheel combat rules at least twice since we started. I like his combat rules alot better and they are easier to understand and execute than the originals.

[Yoodle]

Old school... like before THACO's?  Like when you had to consult a chart to see whether or not you hit?  No thanks...

I can see where you're coming from, and why you like it, but I dislike it for exactly the same reasons.  The loose rules always generated arguments in my groups, or at the very least, delays while the GM figured out how to handle a particular situation.  I like the 3.x systems because most of the rules are pretty intuitive, and for the most part, players know what they can do, and the GMs know how to resolve it.  Sure, you can still have arguments over the rules, but I think they are resolved quicker when you can actually find a definitive ruling in a rulebook.

Of course, if you can get a group of players that truly respect the GM and accept his/her in game rulings, then you don't need the rules defined so tightly.  With a more mature group, that may be possible, but that was not my experience in the old days with less mature groups.  Plus, I always felt that when the GM was "winging it", then we weren't really playing a game.  He was just telling us a story.  In that case, just write the book and I'll read it later.

[Evernevermore]

Interesting Jim - couple questions though

How is any GM not winging it? Or do you mean that as making it u with no plan?

Are you saying to prefer the mechanics to be consistent over the story driving the game?

I wish I'd been able to have you observe one of my Dark Heresy games and then given feedback on how you'd thought I'd run it.

[pghgamer]

Is Swords & Wizardry considered "Old school"?

[Evernevermore]

Yes as its a retro clone - basically a new game that was written either as an homage to or a more accessable version of older games

[jason]

I'll stay out of this thread for the most part, since you're trying to evangelize "old school," and I hate old school, but this...

Are you saying to prefer the mechanics to be consistent over the story driving the game?

...seems to imply that if the mechanics drive the game, the story doesn't, and vice versa.

I consider good rules important, because they disrupt the story I have in mind, or the story you have in mind, and instead throw curves and unexpected surprises that take the story off in new and unexpected directions. I consider good rules those that give us a good story that none of us expected. If rules ruin the story (as opposed to my story), then I'd just call that a broken game.

[mag120]

What is "old school gaming"?

Senet.

Seriously though, I'd agree that the stuff you mentioned sounds like it has more to do with GM style than old vs new.  I don't really have too much experience with the older tabletop games, but I've always thought of the "old school" games as being like the classic hack and slash dungeon crawls, whereas a lot of games now go for the more "cinematic plot," as you say.

[Evernevermore]

No Jason it implies I'm confused by Jims comment and am seeking clarification, that's all. His comment could be taken as meaning hed prefer consistent mechanics rather then giving into the demands of the story. Besides not everyones focus is story telling, when I play I play to have fun, usually by submerging myself in a world that doesn't exist. If I DM then my goal is to make sure everyone has fun then to tell a story. To each their own.

Mag - I understand where your coming from, but I believe hack and slash is a style of play not game. pretty much any game can be made hack and slash if the players chose to - in fact I own 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars which is a story game that can be hack and slash without any changes rule wise. I've also played in older games that focused in quest completion and heard of original D&D games that focused on politucal intruiging. One of the hallmarks or old school is a sandbox world view. The players create their own stories by poking into whatever catches their eye, rather than the plot the DM wants to tell. So to me its philosophical design differences rather then anything else that defines old school, loose rules, rulings and a view towards exploration first in foremost.
For example if I were to run a demo game for old school I'd probably run the Holmes edition of basic D&D with Meepo's Companion to it so level advancement caps at 9. At 9th your character would be a landed lord whose responsibilities in the politics of the land are the focus. When you start out your just a nobody willing to take on dangerous missions for the promise of pay, so you will have developed the character. The only ghings I as Dm know about the story are the initial conditions, the locations of dungeons I've hidden and placed, and scripted events - like a plague will big the eastern side of the kkngdom due to an evil priest zix months game time into the game. The rest will unfold as I resolve the actions of the players.

[Yoodle]

I consider good rules important, because they disrupt the story I have in mind, or the story you have in mind, and instead throw curves and unexpected surprises that take the story off in new and unexpected directions. I consider good rules those that give us a good story that none of us expected. If rules ruin the story (as opposed to my story), then I'd just call that a broken game.

Jason said this far more succinctly than I could, but I agree with him 100%.  I don't have a lot of experience with "story games", but all the "rules light" games I have ever played always seemed like the GM was just telling a story and what the characters did really didn't alter the storyline all that much.  I like the idea of solid mechanics, because then even the GM doesn't know what's going to happen.  So, not only does he/she not know what the characters are going to do, but he/she doesn't know how a particular encounter could turn out.  Just seems more dynamic to me.  Of course, that is not ONLY mechanics, but also how the GM runs things.

[Evernevermore]

Ok Jim that makes more sense but that sounds a lot like railroading which is a DM problem, how do the mechanics work to fix that, as I know you like 3.5