Author Topic: What is Old School Gaming?  (Read 20677 times)

jason

  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 681
  • Storyjammer
    • The Fifth World
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #45 on: December 26, 2010, 10:03:24 PM »
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.
Jason Godesky
thefifthworld.com

Baron Von Harper

  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 5031
  • "Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder."
    • My YouTube RPG Channel
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #46 on: December 26, 2010, 10:29:34 PM »
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.  :) 

 

jason

  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 681
  • Storyjammer
    • The Fifth World
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #47 on: December 26, 2010, 10:36:15 PM »
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.
Jason Godesky
thefifthworld.com

Baron Von Harper

  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 5031
  • "Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder."
    • My YouTube RPG Channel
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #48 on: December 26, 2010, 11:13:41 PM »
We are discussing things.  :) 

Quote
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. 

Evernevermore

  • Knight of Misfortune
  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 2805
  • GASPs resident Mad Hatter
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #49 on: December 26, 2010, 11:36:51 PM »
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
Quoteth the Raven, "Nevermore".

"Character background is what happens between Level 1 and 6" - E Gary Gygax

"What the ---? 'Load Ammo Error'. What does that even mean? This is a Wolfhound!" - Battletech: A Time of War

http://enmc-blog.blogspot.com/

jason

  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 681
  • Storyjammer
    • The Fifth World
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #50 on: December 26, 2010, 11:42:14 PM »
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 Godesky
thefifthworld.com

Evernevermore

  • Knight of Misfortune
  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 2805
  • GASPs resident Mad Hatter
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #51 on: December 27, 2010, 10:05:50 AM »
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
Quoteth the Raven, "Nevermore".

"Character background is what happens between Level 1 and 6" - E Gary Gygax

"What the ---? 'Load Ammo Error'. What does that even mean? This is a Wolfhound!" - Battletech: A Time of War

http://enmc-blog.blogspot.com/

Random

  • Royal Assassin
  • Royal Court
  • Protector
  • Posts: 662
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2010, 10:25:47 AM »
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.

Evernevermore

  • Knight of Misfortune
  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 2805
  • GASPs resident Mad Hatter
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2010, 11:54:06 AM »
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
Quoteth the Raven, "Nevermore".

"Character background is what happens between Level 1 and 6" - E Gary Gygax

"What the ---? 'Load Ammo Error'. What does that even mean? This is a Wolfhound!" - Battletech: A Time of War

http://enmc-blog.blogspot.com/

jason

  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 681
  • Storyjammer
    • The Fifth World
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #54 on: December 27, 2010, 06:03:33 PM »
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?
Jason Godesky
thefifthworld.com

James Viel

  • Knight of GASP
  • Knight
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 257
  • Jim
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2010, 06:56:32 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 07:02:09 PM by James Viel »

jason

  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 681
  • Storyjammer
    • The Fifth World
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2010, 07:09:30 PM »
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?
Jason Godesky
thefifthworld.com

Frost

  • Regular
  • Vassal
  • Posts: 80
  • Roll initiative, bitch.
    • The Dungeoneering Dad
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2010, 10:17:37 PM »
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.

ThrashLibrarian

  • Knight of GASP
  • Knight
  • Citizen
  • Posts: 431
    • Gutter Cult
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2010, 02:36:32 AM »
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.

Evernevermore

  • Knight of Misfortune
  • Moderator
  • Protector
  • Posts: 2805
  • GASPs resident Mad Hatter
Re: What is Old School Gaming?
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2010, 12:36:45 PM »
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

Quoteth the Raven, "Nevermore".

"Character background is what happens between Level 1 and 6" - E Gary Gygax

"What the ---? 'Load Ammo Error'. What does that even mean? This is a Wolfhound!" - Battletech: A Time of War

http://enmc-blog.blogspot.com/