G.A.S.P. Forum
GASP Forum => Role Playing Games (RPGs) => Topic started by: Evernevermore on December 28, 2009, 07:24:08 PM
-
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)
-
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.
-
Were talking even older D&D and it sounds like you've already been playing old school. Ill post more on my lunch break
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Is Swords & Wizardry considered "Old school"?
-
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
-
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.
-
What is "old school gaming"?
Senet. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars which is a story game that can be hack and slash without any changes rule wise.
In 3:16, you have only two stats: Fighting and Not Fighting. It was designed to be a hack-and-slash game.
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.
"Solid rules" do not mean "lots of rules." Frankly, the most solid rules sets I've played with tend to also be light, because they're very tightly interwoven and work together very elegantly to achieve a particular effect. Achieving that with a very large, complex rules set would be very difficult. Kind of like Euro-games.
-
And Jason? Your focusing too much in numbers :P - the real focus f 3:16 isn't combat (that's the vehicle) its a story of soldiers in a war they probably don't totally agree with. Its no more hack and slash then Apocalypse Now or the novel Starship Troopers was. The focus of the story is the development of the characters though the use of Strengths and Weaknesses. Sure it can be played as a hack and slash but I'd bet any game could with sufficient effort ( whether the result is worth the effort is a hugely different matter)
-
Mag - I understand where your coming from, but I believe hack and slash is a style of play not game.
Certainly, you could play a hack and slash 4e game, just as you could run a more story-driven game with older systems. I think the new versions of D&D seem to have added certain points specifically to give it the more "cinematic" feel, but there's nothing in the rules saying you *must* play in a particular style.
But it sounds to me like your issue may be primarily with railroading, which is a problem you can run into with any GM-driven game. So I would consider the things you pointed out in the original post to also be matters of style rather than mechanics.
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.
Really? I always had the opposite impression. Because in story games, the players often have a lot more power to influence the story beyond simply reacting to what the GM throws at them. In something like Ganakagok, for instance, the players basically compete with the GM for narration. So it's about the group creating a story collaboratively. Whereas in D&D, the GM plans out the encounters and has final say over everything that happens, so the players often end up playing the GM's story with little deviation. But that's just my two coppers.
Sure it can be played as a hack and slash but I'd bet any game could with sufficient effort ( whether the result is worth the effort is a hugely different matter)
I don't know. It seems like it would be difficult to play, for instance, Penny for My Thoughts, as a hack and slash.
-
Oh I'm sure it would be hard but I don't like saying something is impossible till I've worked it over - but like I said mag, whether its worth the effort is a whole nother matter. Hehe - it would be a perverse achievement though...
I agree that what Jim mentions about rules light games runs counter to my experience. Usually the rules light games I've played have built in features ala Savage Worlds bennies that allow players to dramatically edit the story. In fact I'm working on a reliable method in my Dark Sun game to do that, with the intent of using either that or a variation of 3:16s strengths and weaknesses in my games. I like the idea of giving players tangible ways of twisting or flavoring the game - as I spend most of my time resolving how the players actions interact with the world then forcing things.
Any thoughts on a good story game for Jim to try
-
Any thoughts on a good story game for Jim to try
You wanted to play Dogs in the Vineyard, didn't you, Jim? Or did you say you'd already played that? I wouldn't mind running that, if you have the second slot open at January Games Day.
-
Any other options?
-
Oh I'm sure it would be hard but I don't like saying something is impossible till I've worked it over - but like I said mag, whether its worth the effort is a whole nother matter. Hehe - it would be a perverse achievement though...
Now I actually want to play a hack and slash Penny for My Thoughts game just to see what it would look like. ;D
Any thoughts on a good story game for Jim to try
I would second Dogs in the Vineyard. That's a good one. I've also had a lot of fun with In a Wicked Age, which was designed by the same guy. The mechanics seem a little clunky in some parts, but I really like the tone of the game. And the character creation is really cool. If you're looking for ways to limit GM railroading ability, this one kind of works because all of the game elements are generated randomly at the table. And like I said, Ganakagok is also really good if you haven't tried it yet. It probably has the tightest game mechanics of any indie game I've tried yet, so it might make a good transition for someone who's used to crunchier games.
-
I think DitV would make a good transition, because it keeps your traditional GM + party dynamic. Plus, it seems doubly appropriate for Jim, because he likes gritty games.
-
I think DitV would make a good transition, because it keeps your traditional GM + party dynamic.
True. Mechanically, Dogs is more D&D-esque than a lot of the indie/story games out there. It's also just a lot of fun to play a Mormon cowboy paladin. :)
-
I'm willing to try anything. And frankly, the more un-like D&D it is, the better. I like the mechanics of D&D 3.5, but the whole medieval fantasy genre has just been done to death. I've been playing D&D for nearly 30 years now, and although I still enjoy it, I would like to try something else too.
Now for something completely different... :)
So, pick a game, and I'll try it. I am going to try to be at game day from 12-8 this month, but I can't guarantee anything, because life just doesn't usually allow for that anymore. So, Jason, if you want to run something, great, but don't run it just for me.
-
your welcome to drop in my barbarians of lemuria game if your free for the second slot Jim - otherwise good luck Jim
-
I've got a playtest of my own game in the first slot. If you're open for the second slot, I always enjoy a good game of Dogs.
I've actually got to see if I can get my Fifth World playtest (http://eonsreach.com/gaspforum/index.php?topic=4522.0) moved up to the second slot this month. My wife's work schedule makes my attendance at the first slot...difficult. I wouldn't call a game still in playtesting the best representative sample upon which to form your opinion of story games, but I'd certainly appreciate your opinion if you're willing to give it a try!
If you want to play Dogs, though, I'd be happy to bring it in February.
-
Late comment on the "Old-Skool/Retro" discussion:
Old-skool/retro is becoming business. Last night I stumbled upon (failed my saving throw) a start up business called Chaotic Henchmen Productions (CHiPs anyone?) dedicated to producing new modules for AD&D 1st Edition. The external artwork on the new 2009 modules looks like TSR module cover artwork (which wasn't that great) giving their product the proper campy appearance. However, while they have the "design sensibilities" of AD&D 1st Edition, the layout of their new-retro modules (almost an oxymoron) is "more modern."
-
While OSRIC is a 1st edition clone, I think I prefer the Labyrinth Lord retro-clone with the Advanced Edition Companion rules, so that you can play separate races and classes with the older D&D rules.
I'd like to give Labyrinth Lord a shot with those optional AD&D-like rules thrown in.
Both are downloadable here without the artwork:
http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html
I've also kicked around the idea of running a very rules-lite BRP fantasy game.
-
Well when you get down to what old school gaming is, 1st edition isn't it. 1st edition is definitely retro but its part of the march to the "one ruleset to rule them all" mentality that organized tournament play created. OSG is intended to be more of a collaborative ruleset
-
I'm surprised no one has posted Matt Finch's Old School Primer: free link (http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/3159558)
I'd like to add one might argue that "old school" is also a mentality more than a rule set. I run a 3.5 D&D campaign and I feel it's very old school. PCs die regularly, there is no over-arching plot apart from plunging the depths of the dungeon (Rappan Athuk in this case), etc.
-
I'm surprised no one has posted Matt Finch's Old School Primer: free link (http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/3159558)
I'd like to add one might argue that "old school" is also a mentality more than a rule set. I run a 3.5 D&D campaign and I feel it's very old school. PCs die regularly, there is no over-arching plot apart from plunging the depths of the dungeon (Rappan Athuk in this case), etc.
-
More than any other document, the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming convinced me that everything I hate in gaming today is a hallmark of "old school" gaming that we haven't killed yet. I had more rants per sentence towards that little book than anything I've touched since Ayn Rand.
-
And you wont kill them, just because you don't like it doesn't mean others don't Jason. What you'd kill is a significant portion of why I do RPGs at all. If I want just stories I have books to read by authors who can tell far better stories than any gamer Ive ever met. If I want combat Ive got miniatures games that are more fun and tactical than any rpg Ive played, even 4e. Its only where story meets game that I get something I dont have in any other hobby.
-
See, that's what I enjoy in RPG's, too. But the Quick Primer makes it pretty clear that things like story, character, and collaboration simply have no place in "old school" gaming. Random example, the "First Zen Moment." "Rulings, not Rules" means that in the end, we're just playing whatever the referee wants to play. If "[t]he referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens," then it's just the referee deciding it arbitrarily (since "common sense" means nothing more than "whatever idiosyncratic collection of things that seem evident to me and might not mean anything to you"). I agree that the best stories come from those points where we can all collaborate, and where randomness even plays a decent role. But since "[r]ules are a resource for the referee, not for the players," that can't be a part of "old school" play. We only get to collaborate as much as the referee will allow, which isn't really collaboration at all. Even in games, there's never such a thing as a benevolent dictator.
One of these days, when I'm feeling particularly bored and full of bile, I'm thinking I might go through the Quick Primer, and for each paragraph, write up why I think it's one of the worst ideas in gaming--and in too many cases than should legitimately come up in a book about games, some of the very worst things you can do to another person in a social setting.
-
That is entirely your perogative Jason, however since you've decided what you believe on OSR is I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with you
-
The Old School Primer did a good job of summing up old school gaming for me. He described what I remembered just how I remembered it. Only he did so with a very positive spin on everything, although frankly I remember it having more problems because of the very things he found exciting with it.
I ran a 7 year old-school D&D gaming campaign back when it was "new". We started with D&D, migrated to AD&D, migrated to 2.0, then later to 2.5 over the course of the game. It got better as the rules got more refined, but I never want to run a game using those systems again.
The biggest problem was the DM having so much power with the ability to write rules as they went along. As the DM, I found this frustrating more than useful because:
- It was hard to keep rulings consistent when the game stretched over a long period (like 7 years). One week I'd rule that grapple works one way, then a year later I'd have to come up with all new rules on the spot to cover it again when it came up. I ended up with a 20 page DM supplement with my collected rules, several of which SHOULD HAVE been in the books to begin with, but never were.
- I had nothing to compare even basic actions to. Without a more robust skill system, it was hard to remember who was good at what, and the non-weapon proficiency system they added in later editions was far less than adequate for that.
- Because the system relied so much on honesty and not hard facts, I repeatedly had players lie to me that their character was experienced in a certain area that they weren't. I started forcing them to write this stuff down on the character sheets, but one crafty player moved his sheet to a word processor and reprinted it, then hand-wrote in the things he needed at the moment he needed them when he thought I wasn't looking. It is far harder to catch cheaters in a system with flexible rules than a system with fixed rules.
- Balance was a joke. I had no way to compare my monster's strength against that of the party, so I got used to adding and subtracting powers and abilities on the fly. My old monster notes read like "14th-ish level monster", "18th-ish level monster", and so on. What really happened was that I as the DM was simply going into every combat knowing in general how bad the party was going to come out of it, who would live and who would die, and what the general result should be. My players kept coming back for more, but I never thought it was right that the fights were never "fair".
The final year of the 7 year campaign was run with d20 3.0, and I was able to throw out 80% of my DM supplement book, have a fair(er) way to judge monsters against party talent, and finally had a decent and usable skill system that rewarded characters for being better at some things than other characters. That said, I do find that they went a bit overboard with having so many rules in 3.5, but that's a different discussion.
-
You can hate, or strongly dislike old school gaming for whatever reason you can come up with, and that's fine. Play other games. There are lots of RPGs out there. I like these games too, and lately I seem to like them more so than many other games that are out there. I actually enjoy the small amount of prep work I have to do for my Darves Hill LL game. :)
-
I certainly can respect one's individual preference. If you don't care for OSR-gaming, so be it. I don't understand the mentality that it needs to be "killed" though. I freakin' hate Monopoly, but don't think it needs to be eliminated.
-
The Old School Primer did a good job of summing up old school gaming for me. He described what I remembered just how I remembered it. Only he did so with a very positive spin on everything, although frankly I remember it having more problems because of the very things he found exciting with it.
Very much agreed. I've learned that what I used to play doesn't count as "old school,"* but the stuff he celebrates is the very stuff that I always found dysfunctional in my older games.
* Side note: Apparently, "old school" has developed the "indie" elite-ness so often found in indie music (though, ironically enough, generally missing from indie RPG's): whatever you're playing is apparently not "old school," but whatever I'm playing is.
You can hate, or strongly dislike old school gaming for whatever reason you can come up with, and that's fine. Play other games. There are lots of RPGs out there.
And I do. Though, I always like to try new things, so if John ever does run that "old school" one-shot he mentioned before, I'd love to play. But we can still discuss why we like one game and why we don't like another. Me saying that I strongly disagree with the Quick Primer doesn't stop anybody from playing an "old school" game.
I certainly can respect one's individual preference. If you don't care for OSR-gaming, so be it. I don't understand the mentality that it needs to be "killed" though. I freakin' hate Monopoly, but don't think it needs to be eliminated.
When I say "killed," I meant that it's gone out of style. For instance, the idea that players should not know the rules. That's an idea that modern games have killed.
-
Indie rpgs don't have elitist attitudes?! Try telling the fans (not the designers I've spoken with and listened to, who have all been cool) that you play old school. And of course there will always be snobby jerks - the Simpsons Comic Book Guy is a stereotype for a reason.
And I've run some old school games, mostly at the con, but until space opens up in the schedule I'm kinda stuck. And no, running sometime other than Gamesdays is not an option.
-
Indie rpgs don't have elitist attitudes?! Try telling the fans (not the designers I've spoken with and listened to, who have all been cool) that you play old school.
Old school seems pretty popular on Story Games. But then, Story Games seems to mostly be designers. Are you talking about RPG.net? Truthfully, I could never spend more than a few minutes there.
And I've run some old school games, mostly at the con, but until space opens up in the schedule I'm kinda stuck. And no, running sometime other than Gamesdays is not an option.
I hear ya. The con is usually the one time that I can reliably pack my schedule with games I've been looking forward to all year long. But if you get one going at Games Day, I'll definitely play. I don't think I'd want to commit to a campaign, but I'd definitely play a one shot.
-
Rpg.net and another one that had some interesting initial posts but the comments went down hill fast.
As to the players not knowing all the rules, why do the players need to know the rules for things like treasure distribution, npc party generation and all the tasks that go into maintaining the campaign world? Or my biggest pet peeve, what is gained at all by players knowing the stats and rules of monsters they HAVEN'T encountered before? In OSR games the players have a rulebook that is theirs, but the DM has books that are his. The players knowing how the rules and stats in those books are is like reading a mystery novel that you know the ending to.
@Random - dude if your players were cheating that badly then the rules don't matter. Either they were so frustrated about being able to do something or winning is the only thing that matters to them, neither attitude is conductive to roleplaying.
-
I thought this was a fantastic post about what "old school gaming" is about
(from Playing D&D with P0rn Stars): link (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/12/riddles-in-dark-or-earn-it.html)
-
Well it is Zac writing, he comes up with some interesting stuff. Ive been reading some other thoughts about emergent story and sandbox games and this dovetails nicely, thanks
-
Interestingly, what he calls the "Riddles in the Dark" effect is something I enjoy, too, and it's one of the things I've always hated in older games, and continue to hate in newer games to the extent that it still survives. Because it so rarely delivers that. Because, as he notes at the end, most of the time there's no coherent story whatsoever, usually because you die before you have a chance to have one. Sure, one time in a hundred it's awesome, but I'm just not willing to play a hundred crappy games for one good one anymore.
You can get that "Riddles in the Dark" effect consistently with games that are designed to deliver that. "Yes, and" is a great technique for delivering that experience. I can get it every single time I'm looking for it, not just once out of a hundred. Since discovering that, I just can't understand why I would ever want to go back to that 99-to-1 ratio.
-
No one expects you to play games you don't like Jason. That's just silly talk.
What is crappy to you, is a breath of fresh air to others. It comes down to opinion, and what people like, but I think we've covered all of this before. :)
-
Sure, but this is a discussion forum--I figured talking about why we like what we like would be pretty much the topic here, no? Well, that and logistics. Frost posted the article, and said that it's a good explanation of what old school gaming is about. I don't really see the connection, since the reason he's giving for preferring old school gaming is one of my top reasons against it, so I'm hoping Frost can elaborate on his point.
-
We are discussing things. :)
I don't really see the connection, since the reason he's giving for preferring old school gaming is one of my top reasons against it, so I'm hoping Frost can elaborate on his point.
In my mind, it all comes down to gaming preferences. I don't see why it needs to be any more complicated than that. In some posts it seems that one type of games are good and another type are bad. I guess I'm just not that black and white when it comes to games. My interests change, and certain types of games and genres seem to be more enjoyable when I'm in the right mood.
For awhile traditional fantasy games were the last thing I wanted to play, and now I'm loving every minute of it because for whatever reasons I could name, I simply enjoy them more now. I could list the reasons, but the bottom line is I'm enjoying them.
I'm having a blast running old school games, and really, what more can I ask from gaming? I've enjoyed running some Story Games, and other new games as well. My book shelf is a testament to my love of a variety of RPGs.
Sometimes I just don't get what we are arguing about, and it just seems like we are splitting hairs.
-
Tim, we're geeks, we ALWAYS split hairs. We're part of the fraternity, whether we admit it or not, that will argue which Star Trek series had the best X, whether Batman could beat Superman and endless other minutia in the things we like. Just like the are car people who will only tolerate certain years of certain models of certain makes, we nitpick and argue nuances. I know I'm guilty too, as I can explain differences between versions of Basic D&D and its clones
-
Well, I guess part of it is that I don't see it as an argument--at least, not in the colloquial sense.
I've managed to get a lot more enjoyment out of games by taking the time to discuss and think about what it is that I enjoy about them. When I thought of fun as something that is basically impossible to analyze or really understand, fun was something fleeting and magical. I'd only have a good game maybe one out of every 10 times I'd play, but I'd keep on playing in the hopes that tonight would be that good night. I'd chalk it up to having the right players, or everybody in the right frame of mind (though, very rarely to the rules, since, after all, "good" players can make any game fun, right?).
Since coming around to the idea that fun is something that I can understand, I've figured out what it is that I enjoy in very specific terms. Now, I have a great game pretty much every time I play.
So, on one level, yes, I do want to share that with others. But more importantly, this has really helped me, and I want to continue doing it. Obviously, not everyone enjoys the same things, but understanding why we enjoy the things we enjoy can lead to very fruitful discussions.
For instance, take the Creative Agendas that Ron Edwards talked about, when he had the audacity to suggest the controversial idea that different players want to get different things out of roleplaying games. There's nothing wrong with enjoying Gamist play. I enjoy a bit of that myself from time to time. But once we understand a distinction like that, we can move beyond what we "like" and what we "don't like," to much more meaningful statements like, "This game supports Gamist play," or "This game supports Simulationist play." More importantly, we can talk about how they do that.
So, if you combine knowing exactly what you want to get out of a roleplaying game (ex: "I like Gamist play."), and what games will support that and how (ex: "This game supports Gamist play by doing X, Y and Z."), then you can choose a game that will deliver what you want, and you can consistently have fun--instead of just hoping that tonight you'll get lucky.
So, bringing this back down to the present case, the article Frost pointed to made the argument that what we'll call the "Riddles in the Dark" effect is something desirable, and therefore, old school games are fun. I'm missing a piece of this argument: how do old school games supply the "Riddles in the Dark" effect? It's my contention that they don't, that in fact if you're looking for the "Riddles in the Dark" effect, this is a very good reason not to play old school games. Yes, they do provide that effect sometimes, say, 1 time in 100. But this is actually a much lower incidence than you'd get from, say, just telling a story together, free-form, without any rules at all. I consider that a baseline, the same role a placebo would have in a drug trial. Rules need to deliver that thing you're looking for (in this case, the "Riddles in the Dark" effect) at least as well as just free-form collaborative storytelling, otherwise, the rules are failing (since we could achieve the effect we're after better without them).
Now, I'm open to being dissuaded from this point of view. If I weren't, the conversation wouldn't be worth having. It's the possibility that you might dissuade me that makes it worthwhile to say something, because I might learn something new.
So, in short, I'm not trying to shoot down the argument. I'm trying to challenge it, because it's only in challenging it that we can really learn something from it.
-
Jason, you want to "kill" old school gaming, why would I want to argue about it with you? I'd much rather have a non confrontational discussion about the style of gaming I like rather than listen to you describe how your favorite style is better. I'm not interested.
If someone else wants to argue go ahead and ill chime back in when there is something to talk about
-
I liked the "Riddles in the Dark" description, and I agree that for many of us our first encounter with it was in old school gaming. But I'll also note that it has evolved, and you don't need to go old school to get that particular feeling back.
So yes, it is certainly an important part of what makes up old school gaming for many of us, it's just not exclusive to it any more.
On a related note, I liked JJ Abrams (creator of Alias and LOST, director of the last Star Trek movie) description of the Mystery Box which is along the same lines:
http://www.ted.com/talks/j_j_abrams_mystery_box.html
It's the same essential idea as "Riddles in the Dark" (simple acts involving big secrets lead to bigger things and more secrets, rinse and repeat). The difference being that Abrams gives you hints that something big is happening without telling you what it is and Tolkein lets it be a complete surprise.
Neither approach is "better" as they are both equally entertaining. And both occur in old school gaming as well as more moden gaming.
-
The problem I have with Abrahms approach is the neccessity that the GM knows that an event is a big thing. And the director or writer of a tv show or movie had better know that. On the otherhand when I run a game its a sandbox where I don't know what's important until the players decide what is important
-
Jason, you want to "kill" old school gaming, why would I want to argue about it with you? I'd much rather have a non confrontational discussion about the style of gaming I like rather than listen to you describe how your favorite style is better. I'm not interested.
If someone else wants to argue go ahead and ill chime back in when there is something to talk about
That's an interesting response, since I went to some pains to go back and clarify what I meant by "kill," particularly insofar as this does not mean that "I want to 'kill' old school gaming," but that modern trends in gaming have "killed" certain tenets of old school gaming, i.e., they have fallen out of fashion (which, I thought was one of the founding notions of the Old School Renaissance, that old school styles of play have fallen out of fashion, otherwise, why would you need a renaissance?). Your usage here might range from willfully misconstruing what I said, all the way up to choosing to interpret my words in the most negative manner possible, that is, refusing to discuss the matter in good faith. Which is interesting, given how much time I've devoted to considering your opinions, and trying to interpret them in the best possible light. Particularly in the context of dismissing me for "being confrontational," such a confrontational response says a lot.
Psychoanalysts have often made the point that the things that we hate most in others, we hate because they remind us of the things we dislike most in our own behavior. I don't think I've been confrontational at all, but it's a point you've brought up more than once. Do you think this might indicate why? Do you find yourself confronting people who disagree with you in this kind of manner more often than you'd like?
The problem I have with Abrahms approach is the neccessity that the GM knows that an event is a big thing. And the director or writer of a tv show or movie had better know that. On the otherhand when I run a game its a sandbox where I don't know what's important until the players decide what is important
Yes! I totally agree. Let's run with this.
So, we want to see how things build. We want to see little unexpected things wind up having big consequences. And, we want everybody at the table to enjoy this process, including the GM.
So, how do we find a game that achieves that?
I know no better way to achieve this than a GM-less game, where everybody understands the principle of "Yes, and." In fact, you'd have a hard time not achieving this that way. No one can know what will end up important. As we layer on detail after detail, we discover the really important bits, which almost always springs from unexpected, unlikely sources. We get the "Riddles in the Dark" effect every single time, and everyone gets to enjoy it.
Now, an old school game, you might get lucky every so often and hit this. More likely, you'll just face ignominious death in a deep, dank dungeon, slain by some scurrilous slime. But, let's ignore that for the moment, and focus on that rare, golden time when it all works out. As a GM, yes, I won't know what matters until the players decide what matters. At least, at the campaign level. For tonight, I need to know what lies in that dungeon. I have two options for tonight. One, I can have the dungeon planned out in pain-staking detail, so I know everything inside it. Maybe I can enjoy the mystery on a larger scale, but only by forfeiting it at the scale of what I do tonight. Or, I can go for hardcore illusionism. I make stuff up on the fly. Or, I run Schroedinger's Dungeon. I'd planned the final encounter on the right, but they decided to go left, so, viola, it now lies on the left. They don't see my notes, they have no idea I changed anything. And, so long as they don't know that, you might keep this up. But eventually, they'll figure it out, and that becomes a huge problem, because now they know that their decisions have no consequences. Therein lies the problem with illusionism: it winds up making the game a solipsistic exercise on the GM's part, and eventually, the players figure that out.
I don't see any escape from this conundrum in old school games--or even, for that matter, in their newer heirs. You choose between hard-and-fast notes so the players can never surprise you, or illusionism, which makes the choices that the players make meaningless. More likely in practice, you treat these as two opposite extremes, and try to find a balance between them. I don't think that offers an escape, though, because it just means finding a blend of the two effects. Maybe you're 50% never surprised, and 50% negating all the players' choices, but that's still not a very good outcome, is it?
Which is not to say that there's no way around the problem. As I said, I get to enjoy precisely this every time I play a GM-less game. But we're talking about the virtues of old school games here. This is why the point about the "Riddles in the Dark" effect confuses me. It's precisely this that I consider one of the stronger arguments against old school games. If you enjoy the "Riddles in the Dark" effect, it seems to me, that is a reason that you should avoid old school games. I'm sure there are things that old school games deliver better than any other kind, but this, in particular, does not seem like one of them.
But you and Frost have made the argument that this is actually what old school gaming is about. This confuses me. Can you explain it to me?
-
It seems ironic to me that "Riddles in the Dark" is used as an example. This is because Tolkien rewrote it for the second edition of the Hobbit to match what he was doing in the Lord of the Rings.
I never heard of GM (old school, new school, red school or blue school) who, told his player: 'hey, that adventure we did last year, well I decided it didn't happen that way but this way, because it works better with the new things I'm cooking up."
________________________________________________________________
I'm not sure what "Riddles in the Dark" has to do with old school anyway.
The point I got from the blog post was that in old school you go from zero to hero. And that you have to earn your stripes instead of having them handed to you on a silver plater.
I understand the feeling of accomplishment. (hey I was a boy scout and earned my merit badges)
What I don't understand is why, if I want to play a general, I should to start out as a buck private and try to work my way up and most likely NOT make it to general.
-
It "Riddles in the Dark" has to do with old school anyway.
I definitely got that part, and I do think old school games deliver that feeling of having earned your way up. Though, I think you want the experience of earning your way, not necessarily the frustration of all the times you don't, so there's probably a better way to do that. I think that desire, to earn your way to the top, is what Gamist play really focuses on.
But I interpreted the blog post as also making the point that you don't know which points in the plot will end up becoming important. You can definitely have that in a game, I just don't see how old school games in particular deliver that. That seems like one of their weak points, just like the feeling of earning your way is a weak point of collaborative games.
What I don't understand is why, if I want to play a general, I should to start out as a buck private and try to work my way up and most likely NOT make it to general.
I think that's when you need to play a different game--one where you play a general. I think we can all agree that there's no style of game that you'd want to play all the time, right?
-
Guess I better chime in and say why I liked the article. Basically, the point I got was that old school gaming lends itself to something random (in this case, stumbling upon a ring) turning into a very memorable and perhaps key part of a character's history. I'm not really sure what kind of games everyone else is talking about here, but I'm guessing that the author was comparing this with later editions of D&D that place a big emphasis on mapping out your character's development as opposed to just having it develop from the randomness of a campaign.
-
One point that I've taken from Zak's blog post is that modern D&D, in a sense, suffers from it's epic-level. From level one, your character is a force to be reckoned with...you are expected to have a some sort of back story, a mission, some goal in life. The story may be told before you even arrive that the table the first time. It's just a matter of going through the motions and collecting the right pieces. There is a big bad out there. He killed your family. You want revenge. Level 1 - 20 (or 30 depending on how modern were talking). He's dead, we win. Other things may happen along the way, but there is often some path set out before the characters primary attributes are even roll (or assigned).
In the older editions, you're just a guy with a sword (and maybe a shield, if you can afford it). You aren't a hero yet. You might die before you even get out of your first dungeon (or through the initial doorway, if you're playing a Raggi module). You're just some shlub who better have a fairly smart (and a bit lucky) player controlling you. There is some quote I've seen around that is attributed to Gygax, I think. I may have even seen it as a sig on this board, actually. It's something like this "Backstory? That's what Level 1 -4 is for..." You start out as a nobody. If you can manage to survive through a few levels, then your story might be worth telling.
Sure...that isn't the game for everyone. I can certainly see both Jason's and Random's arguments against this style of play. It isn't going to work for everyone or every group.
For what it's worth, Frost, I think you "got" what Zak was getting at with his blog post. I certainly see Jason's (and others) points, that maybe old school D&D isn't the BEST way to achieve the situation presented in the blog post, but it is a way. Zak is specifically comparing modern D&D to older editions. Maybe that isn't clear to those who aren't regulars to his blog, though. If anyone is curious, his home game is a heavily house-ruled mix of OD&D and 3rd edition.
-
What I don't understand is why, if I want to play a general, I should to start out as a buck private and try to work my way up and most likely NOT make it to general.
Because everyone else voted to play bug-hunting marines? If you wanted to play generals you need to get the group to want to play, pick a system that does what you want, as Im guessing you want to command grand troop movements and give orders.
Psychoanalysts have often made the point that the things that we hate most in others, we hate because they remind us of the things we dislike most in our own behavior.
Because you are using the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance, you are making an assumption rather than getting facts. So because you cant see a possible way to do it.
I have two options for tonight. One, I can have the dungeon planned out in pain-staking detail, so I know everything inside it. Maybe I can enjoy the mystery on a larger scale, but only by forfeiting it at the scale of what I do tonight. Or, I can go for hardcore illusionism. I make stuff up on the fly. Or, I run Schroedinger's Dungeon. I'd planned the final encounter on the right, but they decided to go left, so, viola, it now lies on the left. They don't see my notes, they have no idea I changed anything. And, so long as they don't know that, you might keep this up. But eventually, they'll figure it out, and that becomes a huge problem, because now they know that their decisions have no consequences. Therein lies the problem with illusionism: it winds up making the game a solipsistic exercise on the GM's part, and eventually, the players figure that out.
Those are the only two possible ways to do this that your vast experience in old school gaming has taught you? Really?
Yeah Im probably coming across as being pissed, and I am. Maybe its not your intention but your wording comes across as "well of course you cant do that, you're using THOSE rules".
Youre completely excluding several things. Maybe;
- 1) the GM is improvising what encounters will be like based on a rough idea of what the world should be like, like a Tolkien world or a city inspiried by 12th century Venice but inhabited by elves or whatever. They dont have hard and fast rules, just a general over arching idea of what kind of stuff will be in there
- 2) the GM does not need to EVER have a specific scene in mind. If you want to tell a specific scene make it a cut scene of exposition or background or go write a short story, either way your not creating a roleplaying scene
- 3) the players may very well explore every damn inch of that dungeon because they are greedy S.O.Bs that want every copper they can get, so even if they dont go a specific route the beastie you created will be eventually encountered. And if you dont use it youve got a surprise for latter. If its so incredibly specifically tied to a single location in a dungeon that it can only be in that one location go back to #2
- 4) the GM is quite happy to let the players wander past the big bad, because then the big bads plans are not hindered and the players can deal with the repercussions later in the game
- 5) why on earth does the GM need to negate any player choices? Thats a recipe for a sucky game at best if not ruining that gaming group, and if thats what youve experienced with some other GM then Im sorry you had a bad experience but stop saddling every GM with that issue. I never intentionally negate a players choice that doesnt break the game setting (i.e. lightsabers in a modern day, realistic zombie survival horror game or Gundams in fantasy or whatever), I merely present them with the consequences of thier actions. They dont save the princess from the dragon then guess what, she got ate. I'm completely willing to roll with in game decisions.
Maybe this would be a better example of the Riddles in the Dark.
The players (for who knows what reason or just random choice) latch onto some random incidental item or character (maybe its a barkeep or barmaid that had a single word description and no name, we'll use the barkeep for the example). For reasons completely unknown to the GM the players keep going back to this throwaway npc whose only reason for being created was to pass along one rumor to the party for a story hook. Suddenly they start asking all kinds of questions like what his name is and his history and you respond "ummm... Harold Tiggerbottom the 4th but he goes by Harry... and he's um sensitive about his last name... and uh he was a soldier in the kings army till he mustered out and bout the tavern". And they start doing weird crap like bringing trophies from thier adventures to hang on his wall and spending thier money freely and you start writing him into the plot ideas you come up with, instead of generic tavern patron knows X, its Bob the drunk who always sits in the end stool at the bar. And as the players interact more with Harry and the attendant patrons of the bar, he becomes a more central NPC to this emerging story as the Bar Patrons become more fleshed out and quest hooks start appearing right in the bar and instead of the game you kind of expected to run this really memorable fantasy version of Cheers in a fantasy world comes about. Thats the Riddles in the Dark in old school, Ive seen it happen with npcs (Ive heard infamous stories about goblins and kobolds that were spared by first level characters and become more long lasting members of the adventuring party than the PCs), equipment, and heard stories of even odder stuff.
So next time you dont get something, ask Jason. Dont go making statements that it has to be X or Y. Just ask...
I may have even seen it as a sig on this board, actually.
Check mine - slight variation
-
Guess I better chime in and say why I liked the article. Basically, the point I got was that old school gaming lends itself to something random (in this case, stumbling upon a ring) turning into a very memorable and perhaps key part of a character's history. I'm not really sure what kind of games everyone else is talking about here, but I'm guessing that the author was comparing this with later editions of D&D that place a big emphasis on mapping out your character's development as opposed to just having it develop from the randomness of a campaign.
I can see that. If we're just comparing original D&D with AD&D or later editions, then that certainly makes sense. I can certainly see how later editions of D&D fail to deliver that as well as the original did.
But of course, there's more than just D&D, so I'm not sure how much that comparison helps.
One point that I've taken from Zak's blog post is that modern D&D, in a sense, suffers from it's epic-level. From level one, your character is a force to be reckoned with...you are expected to have a some sort of back story, a mission, some goal in life.
Absolutely. Judd Karlman called these "99 percenters," because they've played through 99% of their character's story by the time they sit down at the table. I agree with Judd that this seems like a reaction to the GM'ing environment. Once you sit down, you no longer have any real say in what happens to your character. It all lays in the hands of the GM. Maybe you have a benevolent GM, but maybe you don't. I belong to the school that teaches that you can't have such a thing as a benevolent dictator, because even if he happens to act kindly, the very fact that he doesn't have to poisons every interaction you have. The same basic thing, writ small, plays out in a GM'ed game. Yearning for some kind of say in what happens, players look for what avenues they have. I think the increasing length of back-story comes from this, because players can control their characters until they reach the table. So, you put your creativity there. Likewise, I think this explains the "problem" or rules lawyers.
I think old school games placed so much power in the hands of the GM, that players wanted some kind of way to effect the game. So, they got more powers from the start to complement their longer back-stories, and they got access to the rules, which some players latched onto with the fervor of a drowning man for a life preserver. I think in both cases, they've caused big problems for modern games, but ultimately, the problem lies in the concentration of power at the gaming table more than the problematic remedies that the modern "traditional" game has tried.
Zak is specifically comparing modern D&D to older editions. Maybe that isn't clear to those who aren't regulars to his blog, though. If anyone is curious, his home game is a heavily house-ruled mix of OD&D and 3rd edition.
I'm quite familiar with Zak's blog, but I don't think it's a good argument. Sure, it might make a good argument for why he prefers old school games to the editions of D&D released over the past 20 years, but as I said before, we have more games than just D&D.
Because everyone else voted to play bug-hunting marines? If you wanted to play generals you need to get the group to want to play, pick a system that does what you want, as Im guessing you want to command grand troop movements and give orders.
Well put. I totally agree.
Because you are using the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance, you are making an assumption rather than getting facts. So because you cant see a possible way to do it.
Well, each step along the way, I've asked for elaboration on this. I'm not making assumptions, I'm working from the facts that I'm familiar with. I've also been quite open that I may not have all the facts. I've explained the way I see it only in order for those who know facts that I do not might correct me with those facts. I'm asking a question here. I don't think it's really fair to condemn someone for "an argument from ignorance" when he's asking a question.
Pedantic aside: An argument from ignorance is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy means that an argument is not valid, whereas ignorance means that an argument is not sound. I only mention it because the misuse of the term "logical fallacy" is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
the GM is improvising what encounters will be like based on a rough idea of what the world should be like, like a Tolkien world or a city inspiried by 12th century Venice but inhabited by elves or whatever. They dont have hard and fast rules, just a general over arching idea of what kind of stuff will be in there
This sounds like precisely what I was thinking of when I said that, in most practical situations, you'd use some combination of detailed plans and illusionism. A rough idea is just a more nuanced version of detailed plans, no? And improvising would be illusionism, wouldn't it? I know I want a chase through the elven carnivale on gondolas, perhaps. On the one hand, my plans constrain me so that I have to find some way to keep the players in the city. On the other hand, because I'm improvising, if the players go right, then the carnivale is on the right. If they go left, the carnivale is on the left. Their choice doesn't matter; either way, they're going to wind up in the carnivale.
the GM does not need to EVER have a specific scene in mind. If you want to tell a specific scene make it a cut scene of exposition or background or go write a short story, either way your not creating a roleplaying scene
This could well be because of my dearth of experience with old school games, but is this really an option? Is it really feasible to make up everything on the fly? If there's anything that you have to prepare, then isn't that having a specific scene in mind?
I totally agree with #3 & #4. Those are both excellent ways to avoid the frustration of preparing something, and then seeing it go unused, without forcing the players to go do it. From a Gamist point of view, the chance for the players to just dick around in a dungeon and not really accomplish anything seems like a great idea. It really ups the challenge. But I can't shake the feeling that feeling like you've cleaned out everything but you can't seem to find the point of the dungeon wouldn't be very fun. I remember doing that in old adventure games, where you had to go back, room by room, and click on every pixel to figure out where you missed something. I remember it as a very tedious and boring process. That seems like sticking to the first option of a highly detailed plan, though. You planned out the dungeon, and you're not going to change it, even if the players totally miss everything that was cool about it.
why on earth does the GM need to negate any player choices? Thats a recipe for a sucky game at best if not ruining that gaming group, and if thats what youve experienced with some other GM then Im sorry you had a bad experience but stop saddling every GM with that issue. I never intentionally negate a players choice that doesnt break the game setting (i.e. lightsabers in a modern day, realistic zombie survival horror game or Gundams in fantasy or whatever), I merely present them with the consequences of thier actions. They dont save the princess from the dragon then guess what, she got ate. I'm completely willing to roll with in game decisions.
Actually, I think I'm in the rare position of actually having played with a few GM's who genuinely did not do this. I don't want to make any accusations about your GM'ing style, especially since I haven't yet gotten to play in any of your games, but I've read you advising people to do this on more than one occasion. If you face the situation where the thing you want them to face is on the left, and they decide to go right, so you change your notes so now it's on the left, then you're negating player choices. Fudging rolls or saving the princess by fiat are ways to negate player choices, but so is illusionism.
(Ive heard infamous stories about goblins and kobolds that were spared by first level characters and become more long lasting members of the adventuring party than the PCs)
Bruck! Sorry. In my D&D game, a goblin surrendered, so the PC's made him carry their stuff. They started to befriend him, and he became one of the most beloved NPC's in the game. He was abducted and taken to the Feywild, where a fomorian sorcerer turned him into a gremlin. The PC's mounted a rescue, but he was never the same after that experience. He retired to become an acolyte of Corellon at the Elven Court. Though, that was in 4E.
So next time you dont get something, ask Jason. Dont go making statements that it has to be X or Y. Just ask...
I thought I was. The question doesn't make much sense without the context of how I understand it, so I took the time to explain how I understand it first. But I was asking!
-
It's very possible to do everything or nearly everything on the fly. I do it all the time with rules-lite games.
I know we are geeks and all, and we like to dissect things, but sometimes we just look like a bunch of squabbling kids throwing rocks at each other.
I also think this thread has wandered away from the original topic and turned into another trench warfare debate. I don't really enjoy debating about RPGs, and that is why I haven't posted more in this thread. I normally tune out debates in general.
You are all cool people, but sometimes we get a little too carried away with RPG discussions in my opinion, hehe.
-
It's very possible to do everything or nearly everything on the fly. I do it all the time with rules-lite games.
It's possible to do everything on the fly in a game that's designed to do everything on the fly (or, at the very least, is sufficiently simple that it does it by accident). I know old school games do tend to be rules light, but I've been told by old school advocates that old school is more about a style of play, and that key to that style of play is the verisimilitude of a GM planning a dungeon, and sticking to that plan.
I also think this thread has wandered away from the original topic and turned into another trench warfare debate. I don't really enjoy debating about RPGs, and that is why I haven't posted more in this thread. I normally tune out debates in general.
I'm not really here in this thread to promote my favorite games or my favorite style of play. I frequent two forums: this, and Story Games. And on both, there's a lot of people talking about how much they love old school games. In fact, it seems to drown out any discussion of anything else sometimes. I have a hard time understanding this, because it seems to me that, while old school games may be important to the history of the hobby, I can't find many ways in which subsequent games haven't improved upon them greatly. I feel like I must be missing something. I do fear that a lot of people take serious questions as criticism, but I'm really trying to leave that out of it and really find out what old school gaming is all about. A thread titled "What is Old School Gaming?" seemed like the right place to do that.
-
Well, here are my insights then for why I like rules-lite old school games. These are all my opinions of course, so take them with a grain of salt.
A lot of the appeal for me is the lack of the miniatures rules. Sure, you can use miniatures, but there isn't a guy (the rules) over your shoulder the whole time telling you what the rules say. Your players aren't also discussing how miniatures work either, which I always thought was rather meta-gamey. You can ignore miniatures in newer versions of D&D, but it is a whole lot easier to add in miniatures if you like them, than to remove them (and attacks of opportunity) from the game. Some D20 incarnations have done just that, and those are interesting too, but in different ways.
I have about 30 or more pounds of old Ral Partha and Reaper metal miniatures, but I only use them when things get crazy with lots of people doing lots of things. It's also fun to have a miniature that isn't a miniature (like using Monopoly peices)... hehe. But I digress. It is nice to not have to worry about lugging around all of my metal to GASP.
There isn't as much talk about what your character will be at 20th level, and what prestige classes they are going to take on the way. I had a lot of games interrupted because people would discuss things that would only happen if the campaign actually lasted that long, if they put ranks in such and such skill, and if they did some other random thing to be allowed for it. I understand why people did this, but it was annoying from where I sat. I think I also had a higher proportion of players that did this than the standard game, so I might be biased. Okay, I'm biased. :) I like that the main things that affect your character, are the deeds they perform, the NPCs they interact with, and the items and special abilities they acquire through play.
I like that the power level is more in line with Swords & Sorcery, than high fantasy. It is possible to have a more gritty game especially if magic items are rare. There isn't also a methodology for how much GP a high level character is worth, because who can say at what rate you will acquire such things? It depends on the individual game, the setting, etc. I like the whole zero to hero thing, and it is refreshing to be able to whip up a character pretty quickly, and get them into the game.
I like old school games, because they have a different feel, and are a different gaming experience than most of the games I've played in the last 10 years or so. Sure, I might get tired of Labyrinth Lord eventually, and want to run something else, but for now it is a lot of fun with low stress. The warning signs of GM Burnout that I've had in the past have been nonexistent, and that's awesome. GMs burn out for many reasons, and some may burnout because the rules-lite nature of the games makes them rule on the fly a lot, but I'm that kind of GM, and the random tables that littler the Old School Blogosphere make these sorts of things fun, and interesting.
Here is an example of a fun little random table that I'm talking about:
http://beyondtheblackgate.blogspot.com/2010/12/random-table-weird-things-in-rooms.html
Low prep time is another big deal for me, and I can even do it randomly (which is fun, because I am surprised too with what comes up). Random wandering monsters are fun, because I don't know what will be around the next bend, and I didn't have to plan for it either. I have the monster stats, and I can wing things depending on what the players do.
I like that monsters aren't always flesh to be killed. If you roll for a reaction (on a table) a monster can be friendly, or not chase them when they run away, or not attack. I was surprised to see that, and I think it's awesome, because again, I'm not sure what the monster will do if I use that little table. :) I like that I'm just as surprised with what is around the next bend, or what the monster will do, as they players are. Not everyone uses these rules, but they are in there, and I think they are a gem.
Roleplaying vs. rollplaying is another area where I think old school RPGs shine. You can barter with the GM, and come up with a reason why you would be good at something. It's give and take, and it is awesome to see players come up with awesome ideas on the fly themselves. A GM can even leave this up to chance, and let the players roll it if he wants to leave it up to fate. Sure, you can role-play in every game, but it is in my experience that when you have less on your character sheet that you have to roleplaying through things, because you don't have X skill that you can roll instead.
That being said, I generally let people role-play first, and if it makes sense to the NPC, I won't even require a roll, it just happens. I only really require a roll, when it is a situation that hasn't been explained well by the player role-playing the PC. Again, these are just the ways I do things, and other people do them differently. I like that every game has a unique feel, I like house rules, and I like games that let GMs make rulings vs. having lots of rules to memorize and keep track of.
This is getting long winded. I often say I'm an old school convert, because I never played them back when they were popular. The nature of how the games play was something that I stumbled across, and unexpectedly really enjoyed (I was super burned out on traditional fantasy for awhile).
These above are some reasons why I'm having a lot of fun playing these types of games. They aren't for everyone, but I really don't care about that. I play and run them, because I like them. As long as I can get players, and they are having fun, I'll keep running them. I'll see what the future holds, and hopefully have a crapload of fun along the way. Even if I can't find face to face games, I can go to the game forums and play games there.
I think it all boils down to preference, and if you don't get why someone likes a game, maybe that game isn't for you. I don't think games are one size fits all, especially when there are so many of them out there. Play a lot of games, in a lot of settings, and see what you think rules, and what you never want to play again. Jason, I don't think you will ever like old school games with a GM, and that's cool (you don't have to like them). You may be coming from a place, that I will never understand, because many of your complaints about these types of games, I think are strengths.
It's late, I don't know what else to type, so this will have to do... hehe.
-
Well, here are my insights then for why I like rules-lite old school games.
It's probably important to separate those two. My own favorite games are rules light, but quite new.
I can totally understand what you're saying here, but I'm noticing in your post and in most of the others in this thread, we're talking about original D&D vs. AD&D and later. But of course, there's a wider world of games out there than just D&D.
Just to illustrate this point, let's look at something that strikes the same tone: In a Wicked Age. No miniatures, of course (I can't really think of any indie RPG that does use them, frankly). Not only don't you spend any time speculating about your prestige class, you've got to put your character on the line just to see him appear in the next session. It's quite explicitly the sword & sandals tone (at least in the original version) rather than high fantasy, and the most interesting part of the game lies in its random tables, called oracles. In fact, I think it's really perfected that art. Random tables got a bad wrap because of how they came up in old school games, where they created completely ridiculous situations more often than not. The oracles in In a Wicked Age are really elegant. They always produce something really striking and interesting. There's not just low prep time, but zero prep time. Because the situation and characters are created from the oracles, it's simply not possible to prepare for this game ahead of time.
I'd really like to hear someone who could explain to me what old school games are supposed to do well, in their own terms, without reference to any other games. But if we must define old school games only by reference to other games, I think it might help to reach beyond D&D. What does Labyrinth Lord provide that you don't see in In a Wicked Age?
-
I've only played In A Wicked Age once, and that was awhile ago. The main thing I remember about the game was that Chris (Monkius) was a flying head. :)
I don't know if you could do a dungeon crawl with In A Wicked Age, but maybe you can. I'm sure you could houserule in some fantasy races, or just describe them (I really don't remember much of the game).
If you understand liking rules-lite games, then that is a start, because LL is much simpler than later incarnations of D&D (it is a retro-clone of Basic and Expert Classic D&D). It's simple, and it can do traditional fantasy games. Those are two big selling points.
Running a megadungeon, also seems to be something that is pretty big in old school games. It isn't the only way to play it, but it is more popular than more modern games I would think. My game is a megadungeon game, and I'm having fun running it, especially with some random tables like I said.
Describing the game without referencing other games... That's actually hard, because they are a clone of a game system. :) hehe.
Can other games do similar things? Sure. You can run a megadungeon in any version of D&D, or any fantasy game, or even other genres (though the megadungeon would be called an old military base or something).
The use of henchmen/retainers/torchbearers and the like is something I haven't seen really in play before, so that was new for me. I've always frowned on them in other games, but when the rules are so simple, it's easy to stat them up, and watch them die in horrible ways as they normally get asked to do risky things. There are rules so that if you have lots of henchmen die, that others won't line up to help you, hehe. It is just another element that is different.
So yeah, there are games that do similar things, but all I can say is that an old school game seems to have a feel all it's own, and I like that feel while others may not. Maybe it's even hard to express in words. I'm not sure. I'm trying.
-
I don't know if you could do a dungeon crawl with In A Wicked Age, but maybe you can.
You could, but you'd really be stretching it for that. It's good for playing through something like a Robert E. Howard story or something like that. And you'll notice, those stories are really nothing like a dungeon crawl.
OK, maybe that gets us somewhere. So, the dungeon crawl experience is a crucial part of this thing that old school games deliver. But it's not the Gamist type of dungeon crawl that you get from the more recent versions of D&D. Hmmm.
One thing that's always aggravated me in D&D is the really paranoid play that you sometimes see. Players are checking for traps every three feet, poking at everything with their ten foot poles and so on. We'll spend minutes and minutes with nothing more than, "OK, I poke the stones in front of me. Anything?" "No." "OK, I move up a few feet, and poke the stones in front of me. Anything?" "No." Et cetera ad nauseum. I understand how this can pay off when you eventually do find a trap in a clever way like this, like the example that Matthew Finch uses in the Quick Primer, but in general, I think the later innovation of simply having a skill for this is a vast improvement. But I still see this behavior, with people stopping to make perception checks every few feet instead of asking about every individual flagstone in the floor. It can take so long just to walk down the hallway that it drives me nuts. And of course, it's all precisely because we know that the GM will spring a "gotcha" on us as soon as we don't do it.
I bring this up, because when I think of the combination of the dungeon crawl, but all of this talk of taking the rules away from players and putting all the power in the GM's hands, this is what it sounds like. Even the examples that Mattthew Finch uses to show what he appreciates in old school play made me pound my head on my desk. Of course, a "good" GM won't go for the "gotcha," and if you start doing that he'll throw in a trap for you to discover so it isn't a big waste of time. But it also sounds like you're putting yourself into a dictatorship, and hoping it's a benevolent one. And wise, because it takes more than benevolence to make this work, it takes skill. If it does turn out OK, I can't see thinking anything but how we got lucky.
So ... what am I missing? It doesn't seem like that's an experience that old school games can deliver consistently, or am I wrong about that? What is it that old school games do deliver consistently? I have to say, right now, all I can really come up with is, "Letting one of my friends slap me around for a few hours," and that just doesn't seem healthy. I'm hoping one of you can show me why I'm wrong on that.
Describing the game without referencing other games... That's actually hard, because they are a clone of a game system. :) hehe.
Well, OD&D would count as old school (wouldn't it?), and we can certainly look at old school games as a group including the original games and the current crop of retro-clones.
For example, Dogs in the Vineyard is about making moral judgments. There's no "moral judgment" mechanic. Instead, it has what Vincent Baker calls a "fruitful void." All the rules in the game--town creation, escalation, traits, etc.--funnel you towards that. So, once we know the point of the game (making moral judgments), we can look at the game in its own terms, in terms of how well it fulfills that purpose.
In my own game, I found out that the purpose is to juggle relationships. So, I designed all of the mechanics to focus on that. Setup creates situation by creating problems with relationships, the dice mechanics rely on relationships, and the epilogues all center on relationships. Playtesters have described it as feeling very much like a soap opera, which is exactly what I wanted to get from it.
It's kind of a pointless argument to talk about whether or not a game, or even a set of games, fulfills one's own purposes, since we all get different things from different games at different times. Who knows? There might be times when whatever it is that old school games deliver is exactly what I'm looking for, too. But I don't even know what it is that old school games are supposed to deliver.
Maybe it's even hard to express in words. I'm not sure. I'm trying.
I appreciate that, thank you. And I've heard this a lot. John told me before that old school games are something you have to experience, like the Matrix. I've asked him to run a one-shot, then (since it seems unreasonable to sign up for a full campaign for a game nobody seems to be able to explain, and which doesn't seem like anything I'd actually enjoy), but it hasn't really worked out schedule-wise so far.
I retain my faith that surely, surely, the words must exist to describe this experience. We can describe most any other game out there. And I have faith that with some open, honest, and rigorous discussion, we'll find it yet!
-
Ok, so the megadungeon is one key element of old-school gaming. I'll take it a bit further and say that the "sand box" campaign is also a key element. The sandbox might be the megadungeon or the the sandbox might be a larger area and the campaign might be a "hex crawl" more than a dungeon crawl.
"Letting one of my friends slap me around for a few hours," and that just doesn't seem healthy. I'm hoping one of you can show me why I'm wrong on that.
This is coming from the assumption that the GM is out to get the players and their characters. I disagree. I am an adversarial DM in that I run the monsters as if I was a player running an opposing force. However, I am a fair GM and I isolate any knowledge that I, as the GM know, that the monsters do not. That is really just a long way of saying, "I role play the monsters." A good old-school GM tries to be a referee. Yes, it's a bit odd because he is also running the enemies, but then again, he often is running allies as well.
This might come back to your "benevolent dictator" issue. My answer to that is that a key part of the old-school gaming experience is trust between the players and the DM. The players trust that the DM will run a challenging but fair game. If a DM abuses this trust, he'll find himself without players before long.
-
I guess I feel I can chime in here a bit, seeing as this is one of the few active topics on the boards.
Keep in mind that Old School Games were not "designed" so much as "experiments that grew into games", these rule systems were not balanced nor targeted to any particular type of gaming experience. Compared to today's games they were very Rules Lite, but at the time, they were very "rules and options heavy" games. Part of the GM's job was to Pick and Choose what rules/tables/charts/etc were going to actually be used by the group, based on what those players enjoyed.
This means that every "Old School" game WILL have different rules than every other old school game, making the play experience unique to that group. This makes if VERY HARD to compare and contrast the experience from an objective perspective like Jason seems to be trying to do.
Objectively, the "Old School" experience is usually a blend of random table events, player decisions, GM NPC storytelling and some dice rolls. Subjectively, I'd say it is mostly about "what will be fun tonight?", often without worrying about the consequences to long-term-plot/character development/etc. Much like Zen Meditation, much of the experience is to "Go with the Flow" and see where it ends up.
--friarzen
-
This is coming from the assumption that the GM is out to get the players and their characters. I disagree. I am an adversarial DM in that I run the monsters as if I was a player running an opposing force. However, I am a fair GM and I isolate any knowledge that I, as the GM know, that the monsters do not. That is really just a long way of saying, "I role play the monsters." A good old-school GM tries to be a referee. Yes, it's a bit odd because he is also running the enemies, but then again, he often is running allies as well.
Therein lies the rub. I don't know too many GM's who don't try to be fair, and some of them even succeed more often than not. But when it comes right down to it, when you ask the same person to both arbitrate fairly, and run one of the sides involved, you're asking for the impossible. This is why we don't just ask a judge who knows the defendant to try to judge fairly, we expect him to recuse himself.
This might come back to your "benevolent dictator" issue. My answer to that is that a key part of the old-school gaming experience is trust between the players and the DM. The players trust that the DM will run a challenging but fair game. If a DM abuses this trust, he'll find himself without players before long.
Yeah, this is precisely the benevolent dictator issue. A GM who abuses his power is one extreme, and it's not a big problem, since, like you say, we'll just abandon that game. More problematic, actually, is a good GM. There are no perfect GM's, so this does become a problem every so often. It's a cause of friction. The GM tries hard to be fair, so we put up with it, but it's a huge burden on the GM, and it's still a cause of friction nonetheless. That seems like a lot of frustration for a game.
When I GM my D&D game, for instance, I try very hard to be fair. But players still get mad at me for decisions I make from time to time. Obviously, I can't be too horrendous; they keep coming back to play. But I end up feeling like this is a dysfunctional relationship, going both ways. Their expectations put a big burden on me, and in return, any time that I make a decision that I think is fair and they don't, they feel cheated or abused, even if only a little bit. At one time, I accepted this as a necessary evil. How could you have a roleplaying game otherwise? Then I discovered GM-less games, and found out that this isn't necessary at all, so now I always have to ask what purpose it serves in any game. Now, some games, it does serve a purpose. In Steal Away Jordan the relationship between player and GM mimics the relationship between slave and slave-owner. In Misspent Youth, the Authority gives the Youthful Offenders someone to unite against and overthrow. What purpose does it serve in an old school game? There's a price, it causes some problems. What does it give us in return that makes that price worthwhile?
Keep in mind that Old School Games were not "designed" so much as "experiments that grew into games", these rule systems were not balanced nor targeted to any particular type of gaming experience. Compared to today's games they were very Rules Lite, but at the time, they were very "rules and options heavy" games. Part of the GM's job was to Pick and Choose what rules/tables/charts/etc were going to actually be used by the group, based on what those players enjoyed.
True, but that doesn't answer the question of why people still play them. If I want a particular experience, and game A is laser focused on providing me with the experience I want, and game B kinda sorta wanders in that direction, why would I ever play game B? I see three possibilities:
- I don't know that game A exists, so I'll continue to play game B, not knowing what I'm missing.
- I have a lot of nostalgia for game B, so I'll continue playing it. I'll tell people that I enjoy playing game B, because it's not about the game for me; the game has become a symbol for a whole mass of feelings and memories, including time spent with my friends and my feelings towards them. I probably proceed to attach some identity politics to it, as well. I identify myself as a player of game B. As a result, someone who tells me about game A is attacking my identity, my friends, and my cherished memories, rather than pointing out the mechanical weaknesses in a rule set.
- Though not designed consciously for it, the rules thus assembled shape a unique experience all its own. I play game B because game A doesn't actually deliver the same experience I want.
At times, the OSR has seemed to me to be largely driven by #1 or #2. But that's the perspective of an outsider looking in, and I've been told on many occasions that I fundamentally do not understand old school games. I hope it's #3. Or, perhaps there's a #4 that just hasn't occurred to me.
Objectively, the "Old School" experience is usually a blend of random table events, player decisions, GM NPC storytelling and some dice rolls. Subjectively, I'd say it is mostly about "what will be fun tonight?", often without worrying about the consequences to long-term-plot/character development/etc. Much like Zen Meditation, much of the experience is to "Go with the Flow" and see where it ends up.
I very much like that kind of experience. That really lies at the heart of a playing style that Willem Larsen dubbed "storyjamming," something I like a great deal. But don't old school games also have a very strong delineation that puts the GM in charge of the world and the other characters, and the other players in charge of their player characters, all with a very strong emphasis that no one should cross those lines, ever? If players aren't allowed to contribute, except in those narrowly defined ways, doesn't that undermine the idea of going with the flow and seeing where it ends up?
-
True, but that doesn't answer the question of why people still play them.
If this is the heart of your question, then it's been answered a few times by Tim. ;) We play these games because we enjoy them, both as players and as gamemasters.
What I'm really failing to see here is the point of this thread or this discussion.
I thought it was to define what is old school gaming. However, it seems to have turned into old school fans justifying why we play this style of game as opposed to other games. If that is the case, the answer is really simple. We like these games. We enjoy them. We don't have problems with their structure. Ours players don't. That really is about the end of it.
Jason, bless you, but I don't understand what you're getting it. When someone posts something about what an old school game is, you respond by explaining why that thing is bad. You are entitled to that opinion, but us old-school fans don't agree. It's just a matter of taste.
-
Old school games are very flexible, and the rules themselves can be tweaked to give the experience that the group wants. Not only are their options in the rules normally to help you tweak the system, but the whole OSR loves the do it yourself work ethic, and house rules seem to be more rampant. As a constant tinkerer of rules, I feel at home here, hehe.
Because these games have a weaker power base, you can rule a low fantasy game, or run higher fantasy games by adding in more xp, or special abilities given by interacting with NPCs (instead of just getting them at a certain level). Items also seem to have longer durations of special abilities, or more powers, etc. Elven Boots don't just give you a bonus to moving quietly, you do move quietly at all times without a roll. So, if you want to run a game that is low fantasy, everyone MIGHT have a +1 weapon at higher levels, but no other magic item really. Conan himself that I can think of in one story, had a belt he took off a corpse of a magic user that helped protect him against magic, but at the time, he didn't have any other magic item. Also, if they don't find any spell scrolls, or spell books, they can't learn magic as fast (like in the Midnight setting for instance, even though it is new school). So that flexibility is there to really run most fantasy and sword & sorcery games. Story games are more focused, and I think because of this, they loose flexibility. Not all of them are as focused as others, but I think you know what I mean.
So, the dungeon crawl experience is a crucial part of this thing that old school games deliver. But it's not the Gamist type of dungeon crawl that you get from the more recent versions of D&D. Hmmm.
It's very popular, but again, you aren't limited to that kind of campaign if you don't want to. I like the term Hex Crawl, and you can run high political games as well, but instead of lots of dice rolls, it would be nearly all actual role-playing of the player. Some find flaws with this though, if the player isn't really great at role-playing, but I love this. I really like role-playing, so actual player skill is more important as well. The players that have longer living characters, play smart, and don't always just run into combat... because death can be the result any time combat rolls are made.
Danger is another element, and even fear, but those are immersive qualities for me. If you were really going into a structure that has existed since the dawn of time (or dare I say even earlier) where there are horrible nightmare creatures in the dark, smelly, and damp recesses of the earth, I would hope you would feel the danger and fear. By taking off the kiddie gloves, fudging dice rolls, and making ways that characters don't die off, you loose something, and I think those that played those early versions of the games want to actual role-play through being afraid. It is like a football game that is a neck and neck tie the whole game (and not just a blowout game where one team destroys the other one). You are on the edge of your seat, because every combat could be your last. By playing it safe, you loose something. The parade of bodies littering the floors behind your adventuring group, of foes and friends, makes you either consciously or unconsciously see the results of such dangerous work. Only desparate people become adventurers, because they don't have a long lifespan on average.
Of course, if you wanted to run a more Conan-like game, you would probably add in houserules to make the characters able to shrug off damage that other games wouldn't. It all depends on what you are going for. Dungeon crawls are the only thing out there, and that's why flexibility is cool. You don't have to learn different rules for different types of fantasy games, except for the house rules here and there to help attempt to tweak the experience for the type of game you want.
The checking for traps thing is valid, and that style isn't for everyone. What I like is that everyone can search for traps, and it isn't a niche skill. Some of the older games don't have Thieves or Rogues. LL does though, and it does have that check for traps skill. So even in old school games there variations, but most of them are now free, so that's awesome.
Free is important. Because of the OGL, these games can be modified and put out for free in most cases. When you compare free to a $49.95 book, it is mighty tempting. Sure, the new books sometimes blow the old ones out as far as art goes (Pathfinder I'm looking at you) but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I love black and white ink drawings. My favorite art is probably the AD&D 1st Edition Monster Manual, because of the B&W ink drawings.
I generally have the traps already set on the map with a big old "T." I don't think I've ever put one of those in as a gotcha moment. Could you? Yeah sure, it depends on the GM. I think what is bugging you is that every game can be different, and it isn't consistent. It's the nature of the beast. I will agree that GMs that are jerks will be without players, and that is how it should be. The players vote by their presence, if they can't change his bad habits through dialogue at the table. "Dude, if you keep running this in this manner, I'm bailing." You might be pounding your fist on the table a lot in an old school game, because you really just don't seem to like the model for how they work. Again, it's not that big a deal, because there are other fish in the sea.
Letting one of my friends slap me around for a few hours," and that just doesn't seem healthy. I'm hoping one of you can show me why I'm wrong on that.
For me (and I think John too) statements like these make us want to bang our heads and fists on the walls, hehe. I think you are looking too far into the "violence inherent in the system" or "help I'm being repressed" structure that I think is only a real problem in like 5% of GMs. I'm not sure if we can help you with this one, but we try of course.
When I ran Dogs in the Vineyard at the Con, there was only one dice roll (and that was combat). Sure, I probably ran it differently than others would, but it was very role-playing heavy and I didn't want to slow things down with dice rolls. In hindsight, I could run a similar game with any rules from an old school game, because the system can take a back seat to player skill and role-playing at the table. They convinced the NPCs of certain things without resorting to violence, and because their arguments really made sense to the NPCs (if they didn't role-play them out so well, then dice would have clattered away). I think everyone had fun too, so it wasn't like it was a travesty of a game or anything. hehe.
Maybe you will get burned out on Story Games for whatever reason Jason. I was so burned out on fantasy games, that I thought I might not ever return to them. Old school games brought me back into the fantasy fold. Different strokes for different folks, but of course our likes and dislikes can change over time.
Probably my biggest gripe with old school games is the humanocentric standard implied fantasy setting (where humans are always the most flexible intelligent beings). There are house rules to avoid this but it is the implied setting. I have humanocentric rants from time to time...
I would also like to point out that megadungeons are sandboxy, because they are SO FREAKIN' HUGE! You can't tell which way they are going to go, because there are tunnels and hallways in every direction. I tend to map some things out, and leave the rest for running on the fly. My GM notes might say. "Room 156 - combination skeleton thing, magic items, evil bugs under the floor that attack when people talk to much." Sometimes it is even less than that, and I just come up with the rest, for what I think would be the most fun. You can really mold the game to the players likes and dislikes, which is fun, and you can't get that kind of game playing a video game. The choices are endless.
-
Then I discovered GM-less games, and found out that this isn't necessary at all, so now I always have to ask what purpose it serves in any game ... What purpose does it serve in an old school game? There's a price, it causes some problems. What does it give us in return that makes that price worthwhile?
Some people don't like GM-less games. Some people like to be players that really don't have to prepare or come up with good stories. These are the players that never want to be GMs normally. I can think of many players that want to show up with zero prep work, and not have to be all that creative. If you put these players into a game without a GM, I think it would tank. Some people aren't as good at being creative, and some people really don't like being creative. I'm not that kind of person, but I've seen it in play. Is this a bad thing? It might depend on your point of view. They enjoy being just a player with less input in a game than a GM, but they do enjoy making all the decisions for their character, and that is there contribution (which sometimes is indeed more creative than the GM).
I very much like that kind of experience. That really lies at the heart of a playing style that Willem Larsen dubbed "storyjamming," something I like a great deal. But don't old school games also have a very strong delineation that puts the GM in charge of the world and the other characters, and the other players in charge of their player characters, all with a very strong emphasis that no one should cross those lines, ever? If players aren't allowed to contribute, except in those narrowly defined ways, doesn't that undermine the idea of going with the flow and seeing where it ends up?
Because old school games aren't easily classified, and can't be put neatly into boxes with labels, big sweeping statements about them generally don't work, or rub us the wrong way. :) Just because GM X's game is like this, doesn't mean my game is. :) Just because one game doesn't allow player choice, doesn't mean I couldn't have a player describe what a room looks like, IF they enjoy having that much freedom. Again, it depends. There would be nothing wrong with you Jason (who is running a D&D game) to run another D&D game, with old school rules, and then house ruling the crap out of them with Story Game ideas. Frankly, I'd like to see a game like that, just to see what you would add to them.
I've brought in Story Game ideas (such as more player input) into many of my games, I even did a YouTube video about it, trying to figure out a way to bolt ideas like that onto them. Some players didn't like those ideas, while others did. It depends on your group, and what you want to do to mold the game to the players. Because the games are that flexible, you can created a do it yourself game with optional and house rules that fits your group like a glove.
-
Thanks for your patience, everyone. I guess I'm either just not going to get what "old school" means, or it's because I'm looking for a solid definition where there just isn't one. It seems like each person who talks about old school gaming has their own idea of what it is, and what counts and what doesn't. Thank you all for your patience in reading my questions and trying to answer them.
Some people don't like GM-less games. Some people like to be players that really don't have to prepare or come up with good stories. These are the players that never want to be GMs normally. I can think of many players that want to show up with zero prep work, and not have to be all that creative.
I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a GM-less game entails. You can't prepare for a GM-less game, and the easiest way to screw one up is to try to be creative, so those players would be perfect for a GM-less game. It's when people prep and bring stuff to the table already in mind so they're not willing to react to others, and when people hold up the game so that they can try to be creative instead of going with what seems obvious, that GM-less games go off the tracks.
Just because one game doesn't allow player choice, doesn't mean I couldn't have a player describe what a room looks like, IF they enjoy having that much freedom.
Oh, interesting. I've read other OSR advocates who have told me that allowing players to say anything about anything other than their own characters is absolutely inimical to old school gaming, and if you're doing that, then it can't be old school. But I've also noticed the definitions of what is and isn't old school seem to change with each person I try to talk to about it.
-
But I've also noticed the definitions of what is and isn't old school seem to change with each person I try to talk to about it.
This is very true. For example, some might limit "old school" to certain rule systems, while others might say it applies to a play style. I tend to think of it more of a play style. I currently DM a D&D 3.5 campaign that I consider more old school than any AD&D campaigns I ran back in the day.
In my current campaign:
- I have a mega-dungeon (Rappan Athuk)
- I let the dice fall where they may
- PC death is not uncommon
- player skill often supersedes PC statistics
In my opinion, if there is any unifying element to "old school", I think it's the acceptance of the DM as a referee and adversary rather than the GM as a story teller.
-
This thread just gave me an idea. I'm going to post a sort of challenge for Jason, because I sort of think if he tinkers with the rules, that he might glean a little about these types of games.
Look for the Jason Dungeonjamming Challenge thread. :)
-
Last post on this thread for a while, as I feel like I'm beating my head on a wall. Frost describes it better than I can.
I'm firmly #3 as you can't have nostalgia for something you only discovered later. I got into the hobby with AD&D 2e, and I've played newer editions and found the older rules resulted in more roleplay to resolve things and less dice rolling to resolve them,
And as to non D&D old school; there's Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, rolemaster, anything from Kevin Seimbaba (though most are so broken they only exist as resources), Gamma World, Top Secret, James Bond, Star Frontiers, etc.
-
I have to agree with Frost's short 4 point list above as the simplest defining features of what constitutes "Old School" RPG Gaming. Restated here using my personal interpretation:
* Sandbox (mega-dungeon or whatever)
* Player skill trumps stats on a sheet of paper
* Players suffer the consequences of their decisions (Death, etc)
* Randomness adds to the experience (Dice fall where they may/wandering monsters/etc)
In all, Old School Gaming, to me, involves a feeling of triumph at having survived a session by my wits, improv, and some good luck and being able to advance that character to the next session. It means having both the peak of victory and the occasional agony of defeat to make the victories all the sweeter.
Jason Said:
True, but that doesn't answer the question of why people still play them. If I want a particular experience, and game A is laser focused on providing me with the experience I want, and game B kinda sorta wanders in that direction, why would I ever play game B? I see three possibilities:
* I don't know that game A exists, so I'll continue to play game B, not knowing what I'm missing.
* I have a lot of nostalgia for game B, so I'll continue playing it. I'll tell people that I enjoy playing game B, because it's not about the game for me; the game has become a symbol for a whole mass of feelings and memories, including time spent with my friends and my feelings towards them. I probably proceed to attach some identity politics to it, as well. I identify myself as a player of game B. As a result, someone who tells me about game A is attacking my identity, my friends, and my cherished memories, rather than pointing out the mechanical weaknesses in a rule set.
* Though not designed consciously for it, the rules thus assembled shape a unique experience all its own. I play game B because game A doesn't actually deliver the same experience I want.
At times, the OSR has seemed to me to be largely driven by #1 or #2. But that's the perspective of an outsider looking in, and I've been told on many occasions that I fundamentally do not understand old school games. I hope it's #3. Or, perhaps there's a #4 that just hasn't occurred to me.
Well, #1 is somewhat pointless since nobody will have the ability to play ALL possible games, so in some sense we are all subject to playing what we know/have available. With that caveat, I believe #3 captures what I mean in my previous post, the "House Rules" effect of these systems ends up being a unique experience each time.
I very much like that kind of experience. That really lies at the heart of a playing style that Willem Larsen dubbed "storyjamming," something I like a great deal. But don't old school games also have a very strong delineation that puts the GM in charge of the world and the other characters, and the other players in charge of their player characters, all with a very strong emphasis that no one should cross those lines, ever? If players aren't allowed to contribute, except in those narrowly defined ways, doesn't that undermine the idea of going with the flow and seeing where it ends up?
No, I don't believe it undermines "Going with the Flow" at all...an integral part of that flow is what the GM creates.
--friar
-
Like Jason, I've been keeping up with this thread because I want to understand the appeal and definition of old school gaming considering its resurgence in popularity. Here's what I perceive to be the general consensus so far:
Features of Old School Games
- The DM is a referee and adversary, not a story teller
- It's very possible to do nearly everything on the fly using the DM's on-the-spot rulings
- Random tables are used during gameplay (wandering monsters, treasure, reaction charts)
- Characters earn their name through overcoming obstacles and opponents, going from zero to hero
- Each campaign is unique to the DM and players
- Corollary: Each campaign has a number of house rule supplements
- Character relationships with each other and NPCs are roleplayed, but have no mechanical benefit or supporting rules otherwise
- Game balance isn't particularly important
- --- The following features are shared with numerous other RPGs as well: ---
- They have less DM prep time and less player paperwork overall
- The lack of definitive rules for all circumstances often sparks more DM and player creativity
- The game focuses more on mapping, noticing details, experimentation, deduction, and exploration rather than combat
- Small events could lead to large consequences (the Riddles in the Dark and Mystery Box effects)
- The player has the final say on what the character does
- Corollary: Players suffer the consequences of their decisions
- The rules are guidelines and not the be-all end-all final word with the GM as the final arbiter
- Players don't need to pre-plot their character's classes to reach certain character class goals
- It's more about playing your character than playing your character sheet
- They are run by a DM as dictator, benevolent or otherwise
- They exist in a campaign world
What an Old School Game Is Not
- GM-less
- A story game
- A miniatures combat game
Stereotypical (but not required) Elements of Old School Games
- Humanocentric fantasy settings
- The feel of the game is more "average person" than "superheroic powerful beings"
- Huge dungeon crawls
- The GM will run a game less based on a strict plot and more based on character reactions and decisions (the Sandbox), often improvising as he goes
Keep in mind that these are sweeping generalizations (some DMs don't use the random treasure charts, an old school game could be run as a storygame with epic plots, etc.) and not specific requirements for defining something that, by its nature, can't be clearly defined. I also copied, edited, combined, and paraphrased several of the comments made in the thread so far.
I also left off rules lite because I'm unsure how to classify it in this context, or if it should even be listed. There was not a consensus here that old school is rules lite, and numerous arguments either way. Maybe that's a different discussion: are old school games that use modern rules lite rules actually old school?
-
Nice summary Todd. :)
I think different groups of people classify old school in different ways as well, but I think you hit many of the elements of it in that last post. It might be hard to define it, or understand why people like it, but at the end of the day, they like them, and they play them.
-
I would like to begin with an apology,
I myself only recently started reading this thread, so I'm not quite caught up on all of the posts just yet. That being said I still wanted to throw my own two tollars in on the subject and would like to say that I can only apologize for my ignorance in advance if the current direction of the discussion has nothing to do with what I am submitting as my own humble offering to the table.
I myself as an "old-school" gamer (at least in my opinion) have a few ideas as to what sperates old-school from...um the new shchool (New age? Modern Gaming?), whatever you want to call it. How the two of them differ, in my experience, is that there are certain elements that you will find in an old-school game and likewise not commonly find in games today - either as a direct result of game mechanics or simply the way people run or play. I have a short list of only some of these elements prepared...
- The game in it's entirety is not just a collection of adventures that the characters go on, and actual role-playing is NOT jsut something that you do to fill that annoying time between combats. Role-Playing is ingrained into every element of the game and the character down to what the character eats for breakfast and what weapons they prefer to wield (Dual wield, Sword and board, etc).
- Your character cannot get away with being a moron. You mouth off to the wrong people, like a king, a knight, a samurai, a crime lord, and the character will die. More imporatantly, delicate negations or social situations cannot simply be solved with a dice roll, no matter how charismatic your character may be. On the other side of the same token, the more foolish riskes you take like walking ahead of the trap-finder, throwing yourself headlong into danger or combt against a superior force, or engaging in rampant acts of violence and theivery wihtout regard for the consequenses, will aslo definitely, if not eventually, get you killed.
- Player/Character/Party Cooperation...enough said, moving on
- No, on second thought, we're going to revist that one. Good or bad, for better or for worse, the characters are a team. A team that works together for mutual benefit, and the characters take an interest in the goals of their fellow party members.
- Danger lurks around every corner and you cannot rely on numbers and figures on a sheet of paper to save the character's life. Sometimes you have to play smart and remember that just because you have a CON of forty-rediculous or a +250 to save against poison, doesn't mean that you should try to drink the dwarven ale or the contents of a vial marked poison - "MMMM, I drank the purble potion, it tastes like...burning!"
- "No Save" or "INstant Kill" effects. Many game worlds are really dangerous and really scary places. And in these worlds lurk monsters that could swallow you whole or technology that could reduce you to atoms...or worse. Sometiems the only saving throw you get is to not get hit, not willingly touch or put on the cursed item, or not draw from the deck (you D&D gamers know what I'm talking about).
Ultimately, I think "Old-School" is more of a fame of mind regarding how a game is run or played rather than whether or not a game in and of itself could be considerred old-school.
~R~
Lord Gabriel Stryffe