In udder woids, how far back is "Old School"? Is it pre-1991, as suggested in the "Fastest Chargen Ever" thread? What defines the "Old School" feel? Is it a mindset? An aesthetic? Cheeto dust?
Hell, I dig it and I haven't bothered to define it.
For me it's 1991 as that I think is when Vampire came out. For better or worse, and opinions genuinely vary, for me that is when the old school ends.
Why? Fluff and fiction, old school is about cutting to the chase and getting to the game, new school tries to evoke atmosphere through use of appropriate fiction and setting info.
I think it's a combination of mind set (PCs are 'free' to explore a dangerous environment; no coddling of players; no meta-plots or storylines that they have to follow; etc.) and aesthetics (weird dungeons; Wilderlands/Greyhawk style fantasy worlds; 'sword-and-sorcery' ethos, a la Howard, Leiber, Vance, et al.; Erol Otus and Dave Trampier pictures; not 'dungeonpunk' or 'anime/manga'; etc.).
At least that's how I see 'old school'. :wizard:
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!... Is it pre-1991...?
I'd say, at least with respect to FRPGs (and especially D&D), the advent of
Dragonlance (1984?) heralded the end to the dominance of 'old school'.
I see old school as strictly an 80s phenomenon. In that period of time RPGs briefly flirted with real commercial success. There were a plethora of games out and though starting to break away from wargaming in design, still had obvious attachments.
It's also an art thing for me. 80s gaming art is a treat for me to look at. While the game art nowadays is flashy and clean, but it also feels a little sterile. The older stuff has a real sense of personality, IMO. "Diesel" LaForce, Otus, Sutherland, Elmore, and Easley, with their contemporaries they made really a enthusiastic and joyous body of work that defined the entire decade.
For an example of what I'm talking about artistically go no further than you Doc, it has the same feel I get when I look at my Basic Set:
(http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4364/3971/1600/311676/svendar.gif)
That's a toughie, as "old school" is an amorphous term that can mean many different things to many different people.
When I consider the games I think of when I hear that term, I see the following similarities (a general list of features; just about every "old school" game breaks one or more...FGU games violate #4, but I still think of them as "old school"):
1. Fairly bare-bones characters. Even if the chargen process is involved, PCs are generally defined in fairly broad terms (the exception to this usually being combat). There tend not to be laundry lists of advantages/disadvantages, traits, feats or what have you. Most of the mental/social aspects are left for the player to define on their own terms.
2. Openness. Settings are ill-defined at best (e.g. D&D or Traveller have a strongly implied default setting), and the games are meant (at least in theory) to accomodate a wide variety of genre-appropriate material.
3. The system defines the PCs as game pieces; the role-playing is meant to take place without system constraints.
4. Brevity. Most of these games tend to have short, simple rules that attempt to cover only the most salient activities required by a campaign. GMs are explicitly or implicitly encouraged to house-rule to their hearts' content.
5. Resource management. Heavy emphasis on resource management, teamwork (fighter, mage and cleric as "combined arms"). Scenarios are created to test player abilities at managing their resources.
6. Referee/Player split. GMs and players have distinct roles and responsibilities around the table.
These are just off the toppa my head, and in the time it's taken to type this between calls at work, I'm sure many others have contributed better replies to the topic.
IMHO "Old School" Is definitely pre 91. TSR being the king of old school.
As much as I see 1991 as a deeply significant year for RPGs, the year everything started to go truly wrong, I think that the "old school" definition would probably fit better as pre-1989, before AD&D 2e was released. That's a much more significant divide when it comes to determining what was "old school" and what was not, because 2e ended up sucking the flavour out of D&D, and other RPGs were no longer looking at D&D as the vanguard from a creative point of view.
RPGPundit
For me, old school games involve encounters keyed on a map (eg. B2: Keep on the Borderlands) or randomized (eg. Wandering Monsters) rather than set events that will occur (eg. DL2: Dragons of Flame) to advance "the plot".
Chargen is fast, character mortality is higher.
For me, old school was the era when White Dwarf was a gaming mag with articles about RQ, Traveller and (A)D&D and Dave Langford was championing authors, like Zelany, Wolfe, Aldiss...good times :D
Regards,
David R
"Old school" is when the comic book store had to special order the "funny dice" and games like D&D and Traveller came in a box. Ass end of the 70's through the Reagan 80's.
Quote from: AkrasiaI think it's a combination of mind set (PCs are 'free' to explore a dangerous environment; no coddling of players; no meta-plots or storylines that they have to follow; etc.) and aesthetics (weird dungeons; Wilderlands/Greyhawk style fantasy worlds; 'sword-and-sorcery' ethos, a la Howard, Leiber, Vance, et al.; Erol Otus and Dave Trampier pictures; not 'dungeonpunk' or 'anime/manga'; etc.).
Well yeah. Adventuring for adventuring's sake should also be in there somewhere.
Old Shool = stuff before the Dragonlance adventures
Grognard = someone who came from a wargaming background and moved on to D&D
before the release of the 1st edition PHB
Old Geezer = that guy who played with Gary Gygax
You can be old school without having experienced stuff "back then". The other two categories are more exacting.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!In udder woids, how far back is "Old School"? Is it pre-1991, as suggested in the "Fastest Chargen Ever" thread?
Yes. I personally think it's at least early 1980s and before. There is an even older school before that. Look through the Dragon Magazine Archive CD-ROM and you can see some distinct points of change.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!What defines the "Old School" feel? Is it a mindset? An aesthetic? Cheeto dust?
Random tables. Lots of random tables. :)
I'm getting the feel from what you guys re saying, and furthermore I can agree -- especially with the "1980s and before" sentiment.
I agree with Balbinus that Vampire is a definite turning point.
For context, here's the list of games which were originally published in 1991, from John Kim's excellent RPG encyclopedia (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/). (I've stripped away 2nd editions of things, to leave only games which had their first edition put out in 1991.)
Adventure Quest: Jaern
The Adventures of Luther Arkwright
Afterwars: Roleplaying in Post WWIII America
All Star Wrestling
Amber Diceless Role-playing
Beach Bunny Bimbos with Blasters
Bloodlust
Cyb: Gioco di ruolo in un lontano futuro
Dark Conspiracy
Desperados
Duck Trooper
FSpace RPG
Fuerze Delta
Il Gioco Di Ruolo Di Dylan Dog
Gioco Libero
Guardians
Hahlmabrea
Heavy Metal
Kult
LEF: DE SAMLEDE VRKER
Legend Quest
Lost Souls
Mercenaires
Le Messager
La Méthode du Docteur Chestel
Monsters & Slayers
Mutantes en la Sombra
Nephilim
Plüsch, Power, und Plunder
Verlag
Reich Star
So Ya Wanna Be A Rock N' Roll Star!
Tagmar
TAQ
Thundering Steel: The Role-Playing/Combat Game Of Warfare In The Near Future
Tigres Volants
Timelord
Vampire: The Masquerade
WarpWorld
Webs Basic Gaming System
World of Synnibarr
Have to say, that isn't an encouraging crop. I haven't even heard of most of those games; of those which have become prominant, Vampire is the most obvious one; Kult, Nephilim and Dark Conspiracy all sit in the modern-day horror niche (they can't all have been imitating Vampire - was Nightlife more influential than it's given credit for, or was there something in the air at the time?), and Amber is, while Pundit-approved, nonetheless highly experimental as far as games go. (Was it the first diceless system, or merely the first one to catch on?)
As for World of Synnibar... well. The nicest thing you can say about it is that it is more widely-known than many of the others on that list.
That said, I'm not convinced 1991 marks the end of the "old school". Check out the games published in 1990: Torg, Blood, Nightlife (more modern day horror!), Cyberpunk 2020 (technically a 2nd edition, but it's the version which seems to have made the most impact)... not much which says "old school" to me, except for Rifts.
Perhaps the publication of Rifts should mark the end of the old school? Love it or hate it, you've gotta admit that Rifts takes the class/race/level model of adventure gaming and turns everything to 11 - after you've gone that far, there's not much left to do with it.
Rifts is not at all old school.
Also, the class/race/level mode of roleplaying is still very much in the present, and representative of the mainstream.
Quote from: Abyssal MawRifts is not at all old school.
Also, the class/race/level mode of roleplaying is still very much in the present, and representative of the mainstream.
I am not so sure. RIFTS seems to gleefully follow the definitely old school (or "gonzo", whatever that means in roleplaying) traditions of David Hargrave's Arduin. Its success, of course, is a very 90s thing, and I suspect it had to do a lot with TSR chickening out and toning down its own products.
John Morrow: presently, there is a very good thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=307680) on RPGNet about the role of random tables in old school play. Apparently, even Forge types have rediscovered this hoary old method of inspiration, and one of them even wrote an extensive essay about it!
Quote from: Abyssal MawRifts is not at all old school.
How not?
Rifts is all about kick in the door, shoot the monster, and grab its stuff. It has no "roleplay mechanics" whatsoever. It lacks anything resembling a 90s style unified system. It's all about making up a bunch of characters who have no business being together in the same universe (much less the same group), giving them guns, and letting them shoot things.
Seems pretty old-school to me.
I think SkyRealms of Jorune, is old school. It came out in the mid 80s -fantasy warriors with laser guns...;)
Regards,
David R
While I'm not one to over-quibble with someone else's definitions of Old School, I see Rifts as the last great old school game before the rise of 3E. Mainly because as designed it supports pretty much the same modes of play as pre-Dragonlance D&D.
Quote from: MelanJohn Morrow: presently, there is a very good thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=307680) on RPGNet about the role of random tables in old school play.
I think the "Stochasticity" comment hits the point I was making quite well. People in my home town, in high school, used to run one player, no GM games (we called them "Solo Traveller") based off of published and home made random tables. The Space Gamer used to have joke random tables all the time, too, because they were so common in the hobby. That's a big part of the Old School feel for me.
Quote from: MelanApparently, even Forge types have rediscovered this hoary old method of inspiration, and one of them even wrote an extensive essay about it!
I assume you mean the essay on the Fantasy Oracle? It's not loading for me right now. I'll try to check it out later.
I find personally lacking any definition of old school which does not include pre-fourth edition CoC or games such as Gangbusters or Traveller.
These are early rpgs none of which followed the kick in the door random table approach.
It's why I think rpg.net gets Traveller wrong, they conflate it with a particular mode of D&D play which I don't think even accurately reflects how a lot of people were playing D&D in the early 1980s.
Quote from: BalbinusI find personally lacking any definition of old school which does not include pre-fourth edition CoC or games such as Gangbusters or Traveller.
These are early rpgs none of which followed the kick in the door random table approach.
I'd have to dig out Gangbusters but, uh, character creation in Traveller was all about random tables. So were animal encounters, subsector generation, etc. Need I really give you more specific examples? As I said, in my home town, there were a
lot of people who played Traveller games on their own using random tables to drive the action. I think Traveller is almost the poster boy for the random table approach, which has nothing to do with "kick in the door".
I fixed some typos after posted. Adding: FYI, Traveller was the first real role-playing game I actually really played and it pretty much defines the feel of early role-playing for me. I didn't really play D&D until college. My town was a Traveller town.
Quote from: John MorrowI'd have to dig out Gangbusters but, uh, character creation in Traveller was all about random tables. So were animal encounters, subsector generation, etc. Need I really give you more specific examples? As I said, in my home town, there were a lot of people who played Traveller games on their own using random tables to drive the action. I think Traveller is almost the poster boy for the random table approach, which has nothing to do with "kick in the door".
I fixed some typos after posted. Adding: FYI, Traveller was the first real role-playing game I actually really played and it pretty much defines the feel of early role-playing for me. I didn't really play D&D until college. My town was a Traveller town.
Yeah, on reflection Traveller may not have been my strongest example.
CoC though to me is old school, as is Gangbusters and as were many other games from that period.
For me old school includes the following (not exclusively and in no particular order):
1. Character power is earned in play.
2. Characters who are unlucky or who are played foolishly will likely die.
3. Characters are, unless the dice favour you, average members of their professions at the start.
4. The rules are a starting point, you are expected to add to them as needed.
5. Settings are your business, the rules govern only that absolutely necessary for play (Gangbusters fails this one in a sense, but the genre there rather demands a setting).
6. Gaming is about the possibilities, about the freedom to enjoy whatever kind of story takes your fancy.
7. Characters are not guaranteed to be of equivalent power or to face equivalently powered threats, life is unfair and the game reflects that.
Quote from: MelanJohn Morrow: presently, there is a very good thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=307680) on RPGNet about the role of random tables in old school play. Apparently, even Forge types have rediscovered this hoary old method of inspiration, and one of them even wrote an extensive essay about it!
Heh heh heh. Musta read my blog.
Quote from: BalbinusCoC though to me is old school, as is Gangbusters and as were many other games from that period.
To me, they really aren't. While CoC is certainly a "classic", it was considered something new and different when it came out, and always has been a little different than anything else. So I'd call it "Classic" but not "Old School". The same thing may be true of Gangbusters, which was never a pivotal game in my experience. In fact, I think I got mine in a grab-bag of games that the local hobby shop was trying to get rid of.
Quote from: BalbinusFor me old school includes the following (not exclusively and in no particular order):
I agree that everything on your list were elements of Old School play but want to point out that Setting was also defined in Call of Cthulhu. I don't think those games were characteristic of the period.
Quote from: John MorrowI agree that everything on your list were elements of Old School play but want to point out that Setting was also defined in Call of Cthulhu. I don't think those games were characteristic of the period.
I'll give the matter further thought, your knowledge of rpg history is exceptional and there may be mileage in distinguishing old school from classic.
That said, many of those elements do still appear in the classics as you put it, it's only the setting issue they really fall foul of and in a sense any licenced or historical game must fall foul of that.
Old school
(http://www.rane.com/dj/flashmin.jpg)
New school
(http://www.newsic.it/assets/images3/fo_in_pe_g.jpg)
Rap is still an art, and no-one's from the Old School
cuz Rap is still a brand-new tool
I say No one's from the old school, cuz rap as a whole
Isn't even 20 years old
50 years down the line we can start this
cuz we'll be the 'old school' artists...
"Old School" for me is a feeling to the game. Even before 2E, there was a different feeling, that I can only call "PC". Examples of this would be no longer having devils in D&D. It started before that and I'm try to remember what made me feel like everything changed...I was reading Dragon and I realized something was different...but I can't remember. It was like wimping out. Here, I'm reading Conan, and here, I have a game that no longer has that feel, but should.
"PC" has ruined this country. It even allowed an idiot to win an election...we didn't want to offend other idiots. "No Timmy, you can't become President. You are too dumb." :mad:
I associate it with the idea of the game as a game with rules to be strictly obeyed and challenges to be fairly won or lost depending on luck and player skill.
A lack of "fudging" and players that are able to take the ups with the downs and not become too attached to their characters to roll up a fresh one and keep on trucking when the time comes.
Fair's fair. Never ventured, nothing gained. The show must go on.
Old school is a play style. Rules can certainly aid it or make that style nearly impossible under them.
It's also called wargaming mentality. It started in 1974, or maybe before, if you count prepublished games, and lasted until about 1985; that's when D&D jumped the shark. It didn't take long for the community to follow.
There were plenty of groups who went on playing the "traditional" style, but they were almost all gone in 2000 when 3E came out. There has been a resurgence in the last few years, though.
Quote from: howandwhy99.... 1985; that's when D&D jumped the shark.
But, dude! You could play Barbarians and Thief-Acrobats!
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!But, dude! You could play Barbarians and Thief-Acrobats!
Thief-acrobats sucked, me and a friend measured out on the pavement their jumping distance and tested ourselves against it. We beat it pretty much every time, which did not make it an impressive ability to gain.
We did have a lot of time on our hands actually, why do you ask?
As for Barbarians, whoever thought it a good idea to have a class that would attack members of other classes the party absolutely needed was a lackwit.
Unearthed Arcana, god that killed a lot of campaigns.
Quote from: BalbinusThief-acrobats sucked, me and a friend measured out on the pavement their jumping distance and tested ourselves against it. We beat it pretty much every time, which did not make it an impressive ability to gain.
We did have a lot of time on our hands actually, why do you ask?
As for Barbarians, whoever thought it a good idea to have a class that would attack members of other classes the party absolutely needed was a lackwit.
Unearthed Arcana, god that killed a lot of campaigns.
To be fair to UA, the heaps of new spells were handy - giving magic-users 0-level cantrips allowed them to be vaguely useful at 1st level, and the "ceremony" spell for clerics actually allowed them to behave like priests and get nice game-mechanical bonuses for them.
The new classes were, as far as I'm aware, the big dealbreaker (although the "comeliness" attribute comes a close second). ISTR reading somewhere that the idea behind the barbarian was that it was meant for one-on-one player-vs-DM games, and as such party balance was less of an issue.
When UA came out, we decided to restart our campaign.
In our group, if a character was permitted by the rules you were permitted to play it.
UA introduced several new pc races, many of which were nocturnal.
The resulting party was 50% diurnal, 50% nocturnal, we could only agree to travel at dawn and dusk, when neither faction was unduly disadvantaged. This meant our travel range each day was markedly reduced.
So, our group of mismatched humanoids travelling only at dawn and dusk muddled along, interrupted from time to time by attacks from the Barbarian on the magic using characters.
The game didn't last long.
Lotsa new polearms, though.
Here's my old UA "Overly-Honest Book Cover" from Big Purple days:
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a383/Rotwang/UAFA1.jpg)
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a383/Rotwang/uafa2.jpg)
Listen to the local "classics" station. If the game came out during the timeframe that the songs the station is playing were released, it is "old school".
Quote from: BalbinusYeah, on reflection Traveller may not have been my strongest example.
CoC though to me is old school, as is Gangbusters and as were many other games from that period.
For me old school includes the following (not exclusively and in no particular order):
1. Character power is earned in play.
2. Characters who are unlucky or who are played foolishly will likely die.
3. Characters are, unless the dice favour you, average members of their professions at the start.
4. The rules are a starting point, you are expected to add to them as needed.
5. Settings are your business, the rules govern only that absolutely necessary for play (Gangbusters fails this one in a sense, but the genre there rather demands a setting).
6. Gaming is about the possibilities, about the freedom to enjoy whatever kind of story takes your fancy.
7. Characters are not guaranteed to be of equivalent power or to face equivalently powered threats, life is unfair and the game reflects that.
Did you realize that Exalted meets all your requirements to be Old School =)
Quote from: KrakaJakDid you realize that Exalted meets all your requirements to be Old School =)
Huh? I about drowned trying to grok the setting infodump in the original corebook.
Oh yeah,
I define Old School as any previous edition of a current game, Old School Vampire, Old School D&D, Old School Star Wars, Old School Exalted. The trend is for games to get more streamlined as they put out new editions (not always true, but I did say trend) and "Old School" games tend to be less refined compared to new school games.
Yo momma's so old, they didn't even have school.
Quote from: jrientsHuh? I about drowned trying to grok the setting infodump in the original corebook.
1. Characters all start at the same point, needing XP to earn the really bad assed Charms and Spells and make Combos, where an Exalts true unique strategy comes to play. Yeah, they all start as demigods, but when your enemies are other demigods and god's, you'll certainly need to "level up" before you can start taking them all on.
2. The same goes here, I had a game where a citadel was haunted by Blood Ape Demons, the players usually mopped the floor with them. However, they were re-summoned by ghost mage every other day. The Dawn Caste (the Combat Caste) who had previously killed them both in one round...twice, started playing lazy, got some bad dice rolls and ended up dead.
3. You are an Average Solar Exalt at the start, one of the most powerful beings in creation to be sure, you're however thrust into the big-boy games of Gods, Exalts and Primordials without a clue.
4. Has WW ever done a game with a complete ruleset? There's a lot of houseruling that needs to be done for things that are not covered by the ruleset, it suggests you houserule towards the epic feel and towards the players favor.
5. The entire setting of is expected to be completely changed. The setting in the books is just a starting point, as things should be completely changed by player actions. The existance of Sidereals gives you complete licensce to do whatever the hell you want to with the setting.
6. No explanation needed.
7. Your Essence Two Solar is either taking on Super Easy opponents (like Dragons) or Uber Hard Essence 10 Deathlords riding City Sized War-Machines (Essence is a basic rating of your power level)
Quote from: KrakaJakDid you realize that Exalted meets all your requirements to be Old School =)
It fails 1, as you start off powerful, and arguably it fails 4.
But it definitely fails 1, one of the core elements of the new school I think is that you can start off powerful, whereas in the old school you generally started off at the sucktastic end of the pool.
Quote from: BalbinusIt fails 1, as you start off powerful, and arguably it fails 4.
But it definitely fails 1, one of the core elements of the new school I think is that you can start off powerful, whereas in the old school you generally started off at the sucktastic end of the pool.
In D&D your are supposedly consider "Adventurers of Extroadinary Talent with the potential for greatness". A regular person in D&D will never be able to cast Magic Missile in his entire life. You get Magic Missile (and another Spell!) at first Level :)
However, compared with what you can do at 20th level, you're a pathetic weakling.
Exalted follows the exact same mold.
It passes 4 in spades.
Quote from: KrakaJak5. The entire setting of is expected to be completely changed. The setting in the books is just a starting point, as things should be completely changed by player actions. The existance of Sidereals gives you complete licensce to do whatever the hell you want to with the setting.
That strikes me as a hell of a different prospect that the implied settings of most versions of D&D or original Traveller. Hell, I'm pretty sure the setting info in the Exalted core book is longer than the whole of either the D&D Basic rules or Traveller books 1-3.
Quote from: KrakaJakIn D&D your are supposedly consider "Adventurers of Extroadinary Talent with the potential for greatness". A regular person in D&D will never be able to cast Magic Missile in his entire life. You get Magic Missile (and another Spell!) at first Level :)
However, compared with what you can do at 20th level, you're a pathetic weakling.
Exalted follows the exact same mold.
It passes 4 in spades.
A starting Exalted character is very powerful, just not as powerful as he later will be.
A starting D&D character in the old days was polite to housecats.
It's not really the same thing. It was very, very easy to die in pre 3e D&D at low levels. Certainly a kobold or peasant with a stick was a serious threat. The gap between a level 0 npc and a level one character wasn't really all that much.
Quote from: BalbinusA starting Exalted character is very powerful, just not as powerful as he later will be.
Therefore, the Exalted characters power is earned in play.
Unlike, say, Amber or some other game (like that one with the statue on the cover, I forget its name) where you start out with (almost) absolute power in a given domian, and will never gain more.
Quote from: jrientsThat strikes me as a hell of a different prospect that the implied settings of most versions of D&D or original Traveller. Hell, I'm pretty sure the setting info in the Exalted core book is longer than the whole of either the D&D Basic rules or Traveller books 1-3.
That's because D&D basic set, the setting is "a dungeon" and old traveller the setting is "Outer Space". I'd say the Exalted Core has as much setting as ShadowRun, which was is also pretty Old School (I've never seen/read Gangbusters, or I'd compare it to that).
There's a difference between "starts out weak" and "earns power in play." The former is old school, the latter can be but might not be. Exalted characters have quite a lot of power that is not earned in play.
Perhaps the list was worded poorly in allowing a loophole like that, but I think the intent was pretty clear.
Quote from: KrakaJakTherefore, the Exalted characters power is earned in play.
Unlike, say, Amber or some other game (like that one with the statue on the cover, I forget its name) where you start out with (almost) absolute power in a given domian, and will never gain more.
Look, fair enough if I phrased it badly initially, but the test is that you start off weak or average, starting off powerful and getting more so is not old school.
This isn't legal analysis, finding a way of interpreting the words that supports the argument doesn't mean it fits within the tests I was trying to set out.
Now, if you disagree with the tests that's another matter and fair enough, but if there's ambiguity in what I meant isn't it easier to ask what I meant exactly?
What I said was character power is earned in play. I thought it evident that I meant therefore that characters do not start off powerful, but if I needed to spell that out so be it. Nonetheless, Exalted characters start off powerful and the fact there are vastly more powerful entities in the game and that they become vastly more powerful with time really does not change that.
Would it help if I restated test one to be more clear? I think you do understand that Exalted, for all its many charms, is not old school and that if it gets through on the wording that means the wording is a bit incomplete.
Quote from: KrakaJak3. You are an Average Solar Exalt at the start, one of the most powerful beings in creation to be sure, you're however thrust into the big-boy games of Gods, Exalts and Primordials without a clue.
If you start off as one of the most powerful beings in creation, then you start off with significant unearned power. There is no way that starting setup is remotely old school.
Quote from: James McMurrayThere's a difference between "starts out weak" and "earns power in play." The former is old school, the latter can be but might not be. Exalted characters have quite a lot of power that is not earned in play.
Perhaps the list was worded poorly in allowing a loophole like that, but I think the intent was pretty clear.
Yeah, well I'm debating with Balbinus, the guy who wrote the damn list. So I'm going to use that loophole to make ludicrous statements.
Exalted, I'm sure, is pretty much unaminously considered "New School". I'm just saying that, the way he worded his rules, Exalted can be considered Old-School.
All of this inspired a new rule:
8. Old School games had rules you could argue over, and resolutions that left nobody happy.
Quote from: KrakaJakYeah, well I'm debating with Balbinus, the guy who wrote the damn list. So I'm going to use that loophole to make ludicrous statements.
Ah, nevermind then. Didn't realize you were being an intentional "cocksmock," as they say around here. Please don't let me stop you from making an idiotic ass of yourself if that's your goal.
Have fun! :D
Quote from: KrakaJakYeah, well I'm debating with Balbinus, the guy who wrote the damn list. So I'm going to use that loophole to make ludicrous statements.
Why? The list was intended to be helpful, I hadn't intended it to be read as if it were legal drafting and it doesn't really benefit from doing so.
Well, if it was, then the fact that Exalted could be plugged into it, makes it not very effective at determining what's old school.
I'm sure everyone has their own idea of what they consider "Old-school". If those rules are your personal criteria, cool. You know what it all means. I'm just making (what I consider) funny observations.
Chill out a bit =)
Quote from: KrakaJakUnlike, say, Amber or some other game (like that one with the statue on the cover, I forget its name) where you start out with (almost) absolute power in a given domian, and will never gain more.
What,
Nobilis? If your character in that game starts out with Domain 0, he won't be able to use it for
anything without exerting himself, not to mention that all major miracles or miraculous Destructions of any sort are completely out of his reach. But of course you can later on improve that, or acquire entirely new powers: each further rank in your original and primary Domain costs 3 character points, while the new secondary Domains cost only a single point per rank but cannot be increased above that first one.
Quote from: GrimGentWhat, Nobilis? If your character in that game starts out with Domain 0, he won't be able to use it for anything without exerting himself, not to mention that all major miracles or miraculous Destructions of any sort are completely out of his reach. But of course you can later on improve that, or acquire entirely new powers: each further rank in your original and primary Domain costs 3 character points, while the new secondary Domains cost only a single point per rank but cannot be increased above that first one.
I stand corrected. I t was Nobolis I was thinking of.
The game I played of it, we weren't really allowed to read the rules, just play as our GM instructed us. He could have been playing homebrew for all I know.
Quote from: KrakaJakThe game I played of it, we weren't really allowed to read the rules, just play as our GM instructed us. He could have been playing homebrew for all I know.
Those rules are pretty darn simple, all in all. But how did you manage the whole collective side of the chargen process (namely, designing the Chancel and the Imperator) without knowing how to purchase the various perks and disadvantages in the book...?
Quote from: KrakaJakWell, if it was, then the fact that Exalted could be plugged into it, makes it not very effective at determining what's old school.
I'm sure everyone has their own idea of what they consider "Old-school". If those rules are your personal criteria, cool. You know what it all means. I'm just making (what I consider) funny observations.
Chill out a bit =)
Yeah, sorry, difficult day at work.
Quote from: YamoI associate it with the idea of the game as a game with rules to be strictly obeyed. . .
The only issue that I take with this definition is that it disqualifies the original printings of D&D (the pre-1976 box sets), as being "old school". The rules therein were extremely vague due to space contraints (something specifically mentioned in the rule books themselves). Book Three specifically encourages the play group to make up rules as needed, in point of fact.
For me, "old school"
is this freedome to extrapolate -- rules like those in D&D were often far from complete and, instead of forming a comprehensive set of rules, formed a simple framework that individual play groups were both expected and specifically encouraged to custom tailor to their personal tastes.
That old "Iron Hand of God, Rules as Immutable Law" stuff came about in the late 1970s and, more often than not, wasn't a function of actual text in game books, but of the individuals using them. So why do so many people preach this as though it were canon? I have a theory. . .
I don't think many people today have
first hand familiarity with older game books and, instead, have based their perception of "old school" on game sessions that they participated in, rather than an actual examination of the text in old school games. They simply take it on faith that their experience is representative of the rules as written.
The AD&D 1e DMG, for example, specifically demonizes DMs who purposefully throw nigh-impassable obstacle after nigh-impassable obstacle at their players (it refers to such folks as "Killer DMs") -- yet this is a style of play that many people commonly (and erroneously) cite as being the AD&D default.
That said, I've rarely (if ever) seen anybody play a RPG
exactly as written -- individual interpretations of unclear rules, omission of optional rules, addition of homebrewed rules, and the very personalities of the players make every game of D&D (or any other product for that matter) unique to the people who are sitting around the table.
I don't see following the rules, and making up new rules to cover things not in the printed rules, as being mutually exclusive.
Quote from: StuartI don't see following the rules, and making up new rules to cover things not in the printed rules, as being mutually exclusive.
Nor do I, but it's an argument that I have seen made in numerous instances. Perhaps this wasn't what Yamo meant to imply, though given his well-established disdain for systems that don't spell out everything in minute detail, I suspect that this was
exactly what he meant. He's very much against making things up on the fly, though D&D originally encouraged such play (if not outright demanded it).
I can't speak for Yamo, but for me oldschool games were more about following the rules as written, and creating new rules when needed, instead of fudging / ignoring existing rules (both official and group-created) in the interest of telling "a story" through the game.
Quote from: StuartI can't speak for Yamo, but for me oldschool games were more about following the rules as written, and creating new rules when needed, instead of fudging / ignoring existing rules (both official and group-created) in the interest of telling "a story" through the game.
I agree. Having house rules that you
follow as rules is very OS in my book. :cool:
Same here. The idea is that if you make a rule to fill a gap or fix something you don't like in the rules as written, it then becomes a new, formal rule.
Furthermore there's a clear line between "rules" and what I will call for lack of a better term "social understandings".
Quote from: GrimGentThose rules are pretty darn simple, all in all. But how did you manage the whole collective side of the chargen process (namely, designing the Chancel and the Imperator) without knowing how to purchase the various perks and disadvantages in the book...?
They were explained by the GM. We played through a few sessions and there was never a mention of advancement.
Quote from: StuartI can't speak for Yamo, but for me oldschool games were more about following the rules as written, and creating new rules when needed, instead of fudging / ignoring existing rules (both official and group-created) in the interest of telling "a story" through the game.
Pretty close. Although I'd say, it was Old School to follow the rules and hope a future supplement had the new rules you were looking for!
"Old School", in my mind, is not about PC awesomeness. That doesn't mean PCs are weak though.
Originally every character started with 1d6hp and every weapon did 1d6 damage. 0hp = dead. The game was not about winning with awesome power. It was using yer noggin to beat the other guy.
Quote from: StuartI can't speak for Yamo, but for me oldschool games were more about following the rules as written, and creating new rules when needed. . .
I agree.
Quote. . . instead of fudging / ignoring existing rules (both official and group-created) in the interest of telling "a story" through the game.
I haven't seen too many AD&D 1e players, for instance, that didn't ignore the grappling rules or weapon speed rules. I think that ignoring stuff in favor of houserules that you like better is perfectly "old school". . . it's the "story" thing that is key.
"Story" (or more correctly,
plot) wasn't much of a concern in OD&D and other early RPGs -- adventures were less about structured plots than they were about running through a gauntlet of keyed (and usually completely unrelated) encounters, as you mentioned earlier. To this end, I think it may be fair to say that at its most basic level, "old school" games are those that:
- Contain simple, mutable, rules.
- Eschew structured plot.
I'm tempted to go one step further and say that eschewing internal consistency (both in rules and adventure design) is also a defining feature of many "old school" games. Witness the early D&D dungeons with a monster in every room, yet zero interaction amongst them, charcters adventuring just because they can, etc.
Some people dismiss this as "gonzo" but I think that "gonzo" is the deliberate attempt to avoid internal consistency, whereas most "old school" lack of consistency arose, not by design, but as a result of such games not yet having their own identity and borrowing heavily from other mediums.
Quote from: howandwhy99"Old School", in my mind, is not about PC awesomeness. That doesn't mean PCs are weak though.
Originally every character started with 1d6hp and every weapon did 1d6 damage. 0hp = dead. The game was not about winning with awesome power. It was using yer noggin to beat the other guy.
This is critical, in many modern games the dice are basically weighted in the characters' favour, in old school games the character's survival depended on the player playing smart and being lucky, the game itself gave no breaks.
Quote from: jdrakehI haven't seen too many AD&D 1e players, for instance, that didn't ignore the grappling rules or weapon speed rules.
I guess I should have said 'selectively ignore'. ;)
Quote from: KrakaJakWe played through a few sessions and there was never a mention of advancement.
Well, advancement is relatively slow in
Nob: a short campaign might yield enough CPs to raise one attribute, so it's not really much of an issue over a single scenario or so. You should still get dynasty points at the end of each session, though.
Quote from: jdrakehNor do I, but it's an argument that I have seen made in numerous instances. Perhaps this wasn't what Yamo meant to imply, though given his well-established disdain for systems that don't spell out everything in minute detail, I suspect that this was exactly what he meant. He's very much against making things up on the fly, though D&D originally encouraged such play (if not outright demanded it).
That's the most bizzare interpretation of my gaming preferences I've ever heard. Are you sure you're not confusing me with somebody else? Point of fact: I'm not too interested in how many rules a game has, I just prefer that whatever rules the group agrees upon be applied fairly across the board without case-by-case "fudging." Extrapolating new rules to cover new situations is of course a vital part of the GM's responsibilities during the course of most campaigns.
Quote from: jdrakehI'm tempted to go one step further and say that eschewing internal consistency (both in rules and adventure design) is also a defining feature of many "old school" games. Witness the early D&D dungeons with a monster in every room, yet zero interaction amongst them, charcters adventuring just because they can, etc.
Some people dismiss this as "gonzo" but I think that "gonzo" is the deliberate attempt to avoid internal consistency, whereas most "old school" lack of consistency arose, not by design, but as a result of such games not yet having their own identity and borrowing heavily from other mediums.
Do you really think that people were doing all that inconsistent stuff because they were just more ignorant then? Old School games KNEW they were gonzo, and liked it that way. They didn't take the "hobby" as seriously as some people do now.
RPGPundit
Back when I did inconsistent dungeons and so on I wasn't being gonzo, I was being an adolescent.
Put another way, I'm with jdrakeh on this one.
Quote from: RPGPunditDo you really think that people were doing all that inconsistent stuff because they were just more ignorant then? Old School games KNEW they were gonzo, and liked it that way. They didn't take the "hobby" as seriously as some people do now.
RPGPundit
I don't think the games were gonzo they were just inconsistent -and I played a hell of a lot those games.
Also there really wasn't much of a
hobby back in the day to take seriously - some would argue there still isn't today.
Regards,
David R
You know what Old-school gaming is/was?
NOT TALKING ABOUT IT ON A FORUM, AND JUST PLAYING.
pretty much..
Quote from: KrakaJakPretty close. Although I'd say, it was Old School to follow the rules and hope a future supplement had the new rules you were looking for!
"Old school" is games that were complete out of the box. We never hoped for future supplements to contain anything other than cool shit and I think any game that said, "You need to wait for Supplement X to get rules to do Y" would have gotten trash canned. The idea that you needed to wait for supplements to get the complete rules set is a product of '90s line bloat.
Quote from: Wil"Old school" is games that were complete out of the box. We never hoped for future supplements to contain anything other than cool shit and I think any game that said, "You need to wait for Supplement X to get rules to do Y" would have gotten trash canned. The idea that you needed to wait for supplements to get the complete rules set is a product of '90s line bloat.
That is definitely true.
Quote from: RPGPunditDo you really think that people were doing all that inconsistent stuff because they were just more ignorant then?
No, and I didn't say that.
QuoteOld School games KNEW they were gonzo, and liked it that way.
I think that some of them did (Arduin being an obvious example), though I think that others (Greyhawk, for instance) were largely inconsistent because they borrowed heavily from existing sources without much thought as to how all of those borrowed elements would ultimately fit together.
That is, I don't think many old school settings set out to be inconsistent by design, but just ended up that way as a side effect of the writers incorporating what they liked from a myriad of inspirational sources without regard to making those things butt up against one another in a manner that made sense.
For what it's worth, this wasn't a matter of ignorance (and, again, I
never said that), but a matter of focus -- old school designers did not care about things making sense internally, rather, they simply focused on emulating what they personally liked from pre-existing sources, with little (if any) regard for consistency in how that stuff was implemented.
That is, most of them weren't deliberately designing "gonzo" settings or systems -- it was merely a serendipitous (well, depending upon your tastes) side effect of the other goals they
were persuing (i.e., making sure that their settings included elements from existing works that they found enjoyable).
AD&D 1e probably serves as the best example of such design, as magic items (even some of their names) were largely ported in from Leiber's short stories, while magic itself was an unabashed port of that found in Vance's
The Dying Earth. And as Gygax himself notes in the DMG, when realism and fun collided in the design process, he opted for fun.
That is, Gygax didn't deliberately pursue "gonzo" as an ideal but, rather, fun (i.e., what he found to be fun). "Gonzo" was just a natural by-product of how he went about pursuing this goal.
QuoteThey didn't take the "hobby" as seriously as some people do now.
I disagree. They (designers) simply didn't care much about "realism" in design back then. They still took their fun plenty seriously.
Quote from: jdrakehI'm tempted to go one step further and say that eschewing internal consistency (both in rules and adventure design) is also a defining feature of many "old school" games. Witness the early D&D dungeons with a monster in every room, yet zero interaction amongst them, charcters adventuring just because they can, etc.
I'm not sure I'd consider this a "defining feature" of the period so much as a "more accepted practice" or "more common practice". Even in the "old school" days, there were plenty of people trying to write and run internally consistent games. See, for example, Bill Armintrout's article about his college Metamorphosis Alpha game (in the 1970s) in The Space Gamer #42. It's also why there were so many games in the late-1970s and early-1980s filled with rules trying to make them more realistic than D&D. Yes, there was Gamma World but there was also Aftermath and Morrow Project. Where at least some of that "internal inconsistency" came from was the mining of fictional sources for elements, but for every Star Patrol (which had no problem putting Vulcans and Wookies in the same setting), there was a Traveller (which, despite borrowed elements like The Sword Worlds, was fairly internally consistent -- licensed supplements aside). Yeah, there was plenty of gonzo but also plenty of seriousness, too.
Quote from: John MorrowI'm not sure I'd consider this a "defining feature" of the period so much as a "more accepted practice" or "more common practice".
That's probably a better way to think of it, though when "old school" discussions come up on forums they, for the most part, tend to focus on a rather narrow body of fantasy RPGs (and for those, I think, my earlier statements ring true).
Quote from: jdrakehThat's probably a better way to think of it, though when "old school" discussions come up on forums they, for the most part, tend to focus on a rather narrow body of fantasy RPGs (and for those, I think, my earlier statements ring true).
Well, when people talk about either "a defining feature of many 'old school' games" or even acknowledge that they are really just talking about "a rather narrow body of fantasy RPGs" and then use only D&D or possibly also Metamorphosis Alpha or Gamma World (other TSR games) as examples, I'm reminded of the old joke that game supplements labeled "suitable for use with all role-playing games" really meant "suitable for use with D&D". ;)
There was plenty of experimentation going on in those "old school" days. I seriously recommend that old Bill Armintrout TSG article. It's still amazingly good advice today, though it would probably drive modern game theorists nuts since the advice is all over the place in terms of style. He talks about making the setting more realistic, using story sensibilities to deal with a romantic quest, system design issues, character role-playing, and even assistant GMs and involving the players in creating setting details -- all ideas that he used back in the 1970s.
Quote from: John MorrowI seriously recommend that old Bill Armintrout TSG article.
I may have read it, as I was a devout collector of all Metagming material at one point in time, though if I did, it failed to impress me as much as it did you. The one article I do still recall from my Space Gamer collection was an eerily accurate prediction of future RPG trends from Steve Jackson (of Texas).
As I said earlier, there are exceptions to my earlier statements, but IME stuff like the article you cite and Tekumel are just that -- exceptions to the rule. I think that the best known (and therefore most defining) games of the late 1970s were largely devoid of internal consistency (Traveller would be the
big exception).
I dunno, RQ is sort of internally consistent. I never got the impression that it was intended for (intentional or unintentional) "gonzo" play. I do not know C&S very well but I suspect it also was designed for a pretty consistent setting & tone.
By 1979-80 (if you look at jhkim's RPG encyclopedia) there were already a pretty large number of games being released that had a focused, coherent setting. I really think the "gonzo" ethic was mainly found in D&D and other TSR games, plus a few direct derivatives. On the other hand all those settings (gonzo or not) seemed pretty well "architected" for open-ended adventure, playgrounds in a way. As such whatever movement or dynamism might occur was pretty much left up to the GM & players. Wandering around killing things was a pretty viable playstyle even if some groups developed over time in different directions.
Quote from: jdrakehI may have read it, as I was a devout collector of all Metagming material at one point in time, though if I did, it failed to impress me as much as it did you.
It was from the Steve Jackson Games era of TSG. The advice was no such much profound as simply good, and not what a lot of people think of when they think of "old school".
Hmmmm. I think I just realized another thing that might be important to the "old school" feel.
I've always said that a key difference between Star Trek: The Next Generation (and later Star Treks) is that the writers were writing Star Trek and knew it. When the writers wrote the first generation of Star Trek, there were real science fiction authors who weren't necessarily trying to write Star Trek. They were trying to write stories in the Star Trek framework. This also relates to the genre comments on that Conan article I posted a link to earlier in the thread -- the difference about being a work in a genre and a work about a genre.
With respect to role-playing games, I think there was a lot of experimentation in the early days because people were figuring out what the medium could do. They tried new genres, new systems, new ideas, and so on. They were like the writers on the original Star Trek series. They were defining the hobby, not trying to conform to it or reinvent it.
Quote from: jdrakehThe one article I do still recall from my Space Gamer collection was an eerily accurate prediction of future RPG trends from Steve Jackson (of Texas).
Do you remember any details?
Quote from: jdrakehAs I said earlier, there are exceptions to my earlier statements, but IME stuff like the article you cite and Tekumel are just that -- exceptions to the rule. I think that the best known (and therefore most defining) games of the late 1970s were largely devoid of internal consistency (Traveller would be the big exception).
Again, I think the exceptions are common enough (Traveller being the most obvious, but there were plenty of others) that I'm not so sure it's a characteristic of the era so much as it's a characteristic of several of the most popular games of the era. While you can argue there isn't much of a difference between those two statements, I think there is. While there were plenty of people looking for gonzo, there were plenty of people running away from it, which is why I think the hobby, as a whole, has largely run away run it. In fact, while I think some of the gonzo was intentional (e.g., Gamma World), at least some of it was simply the product of trailblazers trying to worldbuild in a vacuum with varying degrees of success. Let's not forget how difficult it was to find obscure information about, say, runic alphabets or Indus Valley ruins in the 1970s compared to today, when I can get pages and pages of information with a search on Google. That worldbuilding today is more robust and consistent is hardly surprising.
Quote from: John MorrowDo you remember any details?
Unfortunately, no. All that remains is the feeling of awe. That said, I think that it may have been the "Where We're Going" article in issue 30.