(nods to Omega)

Pretty much.  Heck, I've some jocular definitions of some of the terms involved:

Old School: That which was standard practice (or what I thought to be "standard practice," or how people at my school gaming club played, anyway) when I discovered the hobby.

New School: Any way of doing things I encountered starting about 9-18 months later, most of which is crap.

Ancient History: Anything people did before I discovered the hobby, of which I will only begrudgingly acknowledge the existence if someone flashes me a publication date, most of which is crap.

What I believe the serious advocates think "Old School" vs "New School" is is basic: first they make a decision whether "Old School" or "New School" is the side they want to pick, based either on the "lame geezer antique/modern, hip, cool" or the "first & greatest/all glitz no substance newbie crap" dichotomies. The games and styles they like are slotted into the one side, the garbage they dislike into the other, and a gentlemen's agreement is made to ignore the dozens of games contradicting the premise on the wrong side of the agreed-upon date.

So stipulated, but you can't wring a meaningful definition out of that.

All I know is I bristle whenever someone calls 13th Age a "retroclone"

For me "old school" isnt about the game, its an approach to playing where the GM isnt assumed to be an asshole out to ruin player's lives and players are there to play a role not maximize thier rules knowledge to optimize system performance.

Quote from: Omega;723027Tell me what the game is, not some useless catchword no one can agree what it means.

d20 system in a low fantasy setting. no skills or race powers. Several classes.
d100 system in a hard SF setting. No classes. PC defined by study areas and skills selected. Some alien PCs but no psi powers.
d6 system for GM-less game emulation using a yes/no system. Plug into other games for solo play.

etc. Which is more informative in one sentence.

But you're using a bunch of catch-phrases there. For example, "d20 system". Does this just mean a system that uses a twenty-sided die? Does it imply similarity to D&D? Or is it more specifically related to WotC's "D20 System"?

Suppose I have a variant of Dungeon World that uses 1d20 instead of 2d6. That technically fits the first description: d20 system in a low fantasy setting. no skills or race powers. Several classes.  However, the same might also apply to a retro-clone game. I think there are many important differences between those. Other catch-words you're using include "low fantasy", "classes", "game emulation", "yes/no system" - all of which have lots of disagreement on what they cover.

In some sense, this just reinforces your point that catch-phrases are unclear by themselves. But I think that they can help when combined with other description.

Quote from: TristramEvans;723122All I know is I bristle whenever someone calls 13th Age a "retroclone"

For me "old school" isnt about the game, its an approach to playing where the GM isnt assumed to be an asshole out to ruin player's lives and players are there to play a role not maximize thier rules knowledge to optimize system performance.

In order to not be assholes, GMs need to hold to agreed upon rules, and be ready to hold up their end of the agreed upon social deal made at the beginning of the game. Players have the right to call upon the rules, not say "mother may I?" Rules matter.

Absolutely GM authority, like absolute player authority, leads to shit, shouting yelling unfun bullshit game play.

GM authority and respect must be earned, or GMs will end up roleplaying with themselves in the mirror. Without players, gaming is nothing.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;723198In order to not be assholes, GMs need to hold to agreed upon rules, and be ready to hold up their end of the agreed upon social deal made at the beginning of the game. Players have the right to call upon the rules, not say "mother may I?" Rules matter.

Absolutely GM authority, like absolute player authority, leads to shit, shouting yelling unfun bullshit game play.

GM authority and respect must be earned, or GMs will end up roleplaying with themselves in the mirror. Without players, gaming is nothing.

Yeah, that attitude is exactly what I would call "not old school", or specifically "trust issues".

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;723198In order to not be assholes, GMs need to hold to agreed upon rules, and be ready to hold up their end of the agreed upon social deal made at the beginning of the game. Players have the right to call upon the rules, not say "mother may I?" Rules matter.

Absolutely GM authority, like absolute player authority, leads to shit, shouting yelling unfun bullshit game play.

GM authority and respect must be earned, or GMs will end up roleplaying with themselves in the mirror. Without players, gaming is nothing.

I agree a GM's authority can be lost if he is a bad GM. But i dont think good GMing requires rigid adherence to the rules. For some groups it may, but i know lots of players who hate rules lawyers more than they hate GMs who approach the mechanics with flexibility. Know your group and GM in a way that works for the dynamics at your table.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;723198In order to not be assholes, GMs need to hold to agreed upon rules, and be ready to hold up their end of the agreed upon social deal made at the beginning of the game. Players have the right to call upon the rules, not say "mother may I?" Rules matter.

So is this your actual opinion, or are you just throwing out the old-school strawman to counter the new-school strawman?

Quote from: robiswrong;723212So is this your actual opinion, or are you just throwing out the old-school strawman to counter the new-school strawman?

To be fair, even if it's his genuine opinion, it does not make it any less stupid.

Out of the five people I know who are those GMs with very, very, rigid adherence to rules, three are mental. One of them once went into a screaming fit (this isn't a hyperbole) because the players weren't playing according to the rules of the game, and he claimed that reading Monster Manual and using knowledge from it isn't metagaming. Another one insulted almost every dedicated player in this city and is generally an unsavoury fellow. The last one has decided RPGs are for children, and board games are real men's games.

"GMs need to hold to the rules which have been agreed upon" Agree!

"Rules must be agreed upon for the GM to follow, in order for the GM not to be a jerk" False!

This might just be my perpetually adolescent punk rock anti-authoritarian streak speaking - but I find strict adherence to any set of rules as a personal trait to be completely execrable.

Quote from: Rincewind1;723217To be fair, even if it's his genuine opinion, it does not make it any less stupid.

No, but it does impact how I might respond to it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;723217Out of the five people I know who are those GMs with very, very, rigid adherence to rules, three are mental. One of them once went into a screaming fit (this isn't a hyperbole) because the players weren't playing according to the rules of the game, and he claimed that reading Monster Manual and using knowledge from it isn't metagaming. Another one insulted almost every dedicated player in this city and is generally an unsavoury fellow. The last one has decided RPGs are for children, and board games are real men's games.

(Below is all IMHO)

Strict rules can be useful if you're dealing with players/GMs that can't accept when things don't go their way, as it provides an authority that can't be argued with.  Of course, I generally prefer not to play with those people anyway.

Strict rules can be useful if you're dealing with a GM that has a very rigid, inflexible view of what 'should' or 'shouldn't' happen, and so the game devolves into trying to figure out what exactly the GM wants to occur so that you can continue.  Again, I prefer not to play with those people.

Strict rules can also be useful if you're playing in a game where mastery of the rules and systems is more the point than what's happening in "the world" or the imaginations of the people at the table.  I generally find those games dull, personally.

The first two I mostly see as ways of getting the rules to help you deal with personality issues, which I think is not particularly useful, as problem players will find ways to be problems.  So GMs that like super-strict rules are probably either problem players themselves, or are used to them and lack the ability to either ditch said players or to get them to come to some type of agreement - which likely indicates some level of emotional issue on the part of the GM.

So that's probably why you've seen such a high correlation of strict-rules-GMs and being mental.

I suspect the second is where the "Mother May I" crap comes from, as I've been in games like that.  I always thought of it more like playing "guess the verb" in the old text adventure games, but I can understand the sentiment.  I just disagree that the solution is to take away GM power - I'd rather just play with GMs that *don't do that*.

Quote from: Arminius;723220"GMs need to hold to the rules which have been agreed upon" Agree!

"Rules must be agreed upon for the GM to follow, in order for the GM not to be a jerk" False!

Rule Number One is in every one of my games. This is what it says.

QuoteThe first rule of any tabletop roleplaying game is to have fun. If any rule in this
book isn't fun for you and your group, talk it out, and feel free to change it, especially as
a DM. The rules in this book are meant only as tools, to be folded, spindled, and mutilated
to please the whims of the DM and the players. Do not feel bound by the rules as written:
if you don't like something, throw it out! If something is missing, bash something together
and throw it right in! Don't feel the need to cleave to the words of some dusty old de*
signer huddled in front of his computer with a bottle of scotch in one hand and a key*
board in the other. It's your game, do what you must to make it fun for you.
But remember, as the referee and arbiter of the rules, the DM has the final say
on what stays, what goes, and what changes. Feel free to suggest changes to the game if
you feel they're warranted, but try not to do it in game, and whatever he decides, relax,
maybe what you don't think is fun is still fun for him and the other players at the table. Just
pick up your dice and keep rolling. Remember, this is just a game, and a cooperative one
at that, so don't let hurt feelings or disputes at the table ruin the fun.

Rules lawyer THAT bitches.

Quote from: robiswrong;723234No, but it does impact how I might respond to it.



(Below is all IMHO)

Strict rules can be useful if you're dealing with players/GMs that can't accept when things don't go their way, as it provides an authority that can't be argued with.  Of course, I generally prefer not to play with those people anyway.

Strict rules can be useful if you're dealing with a GM that has a very rigid, inflexible view of what 'should' or 'shouldn't' happen, and so the game devolves into trying to figure out what exactly the GM wants to occur so that you can continue.  Again, I prefer not to play with those people.

Strict rules can also be useful if you're playing in a game where mastery of the rules and systems is more the point than what's happening in "the world" or the imaginations of the people at the table.  I generally find those games dull, personally.

The first two I mostly see as ways of getting the rules to help you deal with personality issues, which I think is not particularly useful, as problem players will find ways to be problems.  So GMs that like super-strict rules are probably either problem players themselves, or are used to them and lack the ability to either ditch said players or to get them to come to some type of agreement - which likely indicates some level of emotional issue on the part of the GM.

So that's probably why you've seen such a high correlation of strict-rules-GMs and being mental.

I suspect the second is where the "Mother May I" crap comes from, as I've been in games like that.  I always thought of it more like playing "guess the verb" in the old text adventure games, but I can understand the sentiment.  I just disagree that the solution is to take away GM power - I'd rather just play with GMs that *don't do that*.

I sadly know all those arguments - I've been to Forge discussions before .

My own problem with the term "Mother May I" is that nowadays, I've seen it as a one - size fit - all club, used by the hardcore indie crowd to describe any game where players need to ask GMs whether their characters can do something, as if asking the narrator/world engine was somehow deigning, like the table was locked in some sort of a Lord - Peasant relationship.

Quote from: Rincewind1;723239I sadly know all those arguments - I've been to Forge discussions before .

You'll notice I'm not agreeing with them

Quote from: Rincewind1;723239My own problem with the term "Mother May I" is that nowadays, I've seen it as a one - size fit - all club, used by the hardcore indie crowd to describe any game where players need to ask GMs whether their characters can do something, as if asking the narrator/world engine was somehow deigning, like the table was locked in some sort of a Lord - Peasant relationship.

Oh, absolutely.  Instead of just describing the worst cases of GMs not allowing anything outside of a narrowly-defined set of preconceived ideas, it's now used as a club to hammer the idea that the GM *shouldn't* even be in the loop of the player's action resolution system at all.  It's arguing against one extreme with the other extreme.

Heck, even the most notable games out of the Forge (I'd argue Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel) both have pretty damn traditional GM roles.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;722984I believe I knew Pemerton about twenty years ago. A good Rolemaster GM. I was a dickhead then (or even more so) so the friendship ended on a sour note, but he's a good guy.

I wouldn't bother arguing with him, he's a law professor and a socialist, even if he's wrong he'll still outclass you.

I have no fear of debating law professors, as I did it for years, and three of my friends are professors.  As for socialist, that makes him naive (and my brother is a socialist professor).  But, all that does explain the didactic, authoritarian, and theory-over-practice based rhetoric he's fond of.  He's always struck me as someone who reads RPG theory a heck of a lot more than he actually plays RPGs, and him being a socialist professor just reinforces that perception.