Quote from: GreyICE;846554I'd propose that you're all flailing around trying to define something that's abstract - a "feel".  

I don't go for an abstract feel, but a practical approach at the table.

For me it concentrates around one key thing.  Description in natural language.  Both of the situation that the referee presents and of the characters' actions by the players.  As well as in the description of the results of those actions after the referee has used the system as needed to figure out what happens.

Not a feel.  Not abstract.  Concrete things the people at the table actually do.

Quote from: NathanIW;846558I don't go for an abstract feel, but a practical approach at the table.

For me it concentrates around one key thing.  Description in natural language.  Both of the situation that the referee presents and of the characters' actions by the players.  As well as in the description of the results of those actions after the referee has used the system as needed to figure out what happens.

Not a feel.  Not abstract.  Concrete things the people at the table actually do.

That contributes to the feel (call it atmosphere, mood, or impression, if you dislike words that mean more than one thing (bonus if you catch the irony).  But it can't really be the whole of it.  Fate Accelerated uses that exact approach - everything is in natural language, and the rolls are extremely quick - but very few would say Fate Accelerated is old school.

That's why your attempts to boil it down to discrete elements are doomed to failure.  Don't make the mistake of assuming everything can be deconstructed to a pile of parts, and that by grabbing the right sort of parts from the right piles you can build a predictable thing.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;846493What say you?

It's a term made up by people trying to catch this 'golden age of gaming' that never existed outside of nostalgia and/or personal experience.  Sometimes, it's been used by people who never even existed during supposed said period.

Here's the thing, this 'Golden Age' never existed in the past, because we're living it now. We have more options, choices and more ways to play the games we want.

Even the OSR movement has created some honest to goodness gems that will be fun for someone looking for that sort of experience.

The hobby has matured, gamers have learned from the experience of others, on both what to do and what not.  No matter what game you pick up, old or new, we have a wealth of knowledge and information to draw from.

Now, IS the golden of gaming.  And I am so happy I am living during it.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Quote from: GreyICE;846559That contributes to the feel (call it atmosphere, mood, or impression, if you dislike words that mean more than one thing (bonus if you catch the irony).  But it can't really be the whole of it.  Fate Accelerated uses that exact approach - everything is in natural language, and the rolls are extremely quick - but very few would say Fate Accelerated is old school.

There's lots going on in my paragraph about sticking to description in natural language that isn't applicable to Fate.  I've run lots of Fate Accelerated lately.  And it's not old school.  I think the point of contrast is actually useful:

In old school games the referee describes a situation and the players describe what their characters do in response to that situation.  The referee uses the rules and describes the results.  This creates a new situation that the players then respond to.  In an ongoing circuit.

In Fate Accelerated, the GM might describe a situation, but the players don't just describe what their characters do.  They make all sorts of decisions based on factors other than what was just described.  Invoking aspects, accepting or refusing compels, concentrating on characterization, etc.,.  And right in the mechanics (approaches) is the idea that *how you go about doing something* is more important than the character's capabilities.  There is a fundamental difference in the basic procedure of play.  The decision making is based on different factors and the resolution of actions is based on different factors.

I'm not sure why you want the task of identifying the characteristics of old school play to be considered impossible or why you characterize it as flailing after and abstract or a feel, but it is really not.  It's about actual people sitting around a table doing things in a certain way.

I'm going to bring in RandallS' excellent post for further illustration:

Quote from: RandallS;846503B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.

Fate Accelerated only really works if the system mastery is there.  If everyone at the table is running on all cylinders when it comes to aspects and the fate point economy.  When a new person comes to the table, the rest of the people at the table really need to step up their rules handling or things can fall flat.  And the person needs to get up to speed fast or they'll be ineffectual as the manipulation of aspects is a major way to contribute to the game.

Quote from: RandallS;846503D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention.

The system mechanics in Fate Accelerated are specifically designed to be interesting for the players to manipulate.  They're supposed to make decisions about whether or not to accept a compel.  Or when the right moment to spend a fate point to invoke an aspect.  And not just aspects on their own characters, but those on other PCs, NPCs, and even places, things or the entire world or thematic focus of the game.

And now back to GreyICE's post:

Quote from: GreyICE;846559That's why your attempts to boil it down to discrete elements are doomed to failure.  Don't make the mistake of assuming everything can be deconstructed to a pile of parts, and that by grabbing the right sort of parts from the right piles you can build a predictable thing.

And yet people are consistently achieving the kind of play described in this thread as old school.  Some have never stopped going back decades.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846561It's a term made up by people trying to catch this 'golden age of gaming' that never existed outside of nostalgia and/or personal experience.  Sometimes, it's been used by people who never even existed during supposed said period.

I don't have to be around for the birth of chess to enjoy it as a game.  And if it existed inside of personal experience, it existed.  As people experienced it.  There are people on this very forum who haven't departed from the approach described in this thread for 40+ years.

QuoteHere's the thing, this 'Golden Age' never existed in the past, because we're living it now. We have more options, choices and more ways to play the games we want.

Even the OSR movement has created some honest to goodness gems that will be fun for someone looking for that sort of experience.

I completely agree.

QuoteNow, IS the golden of gaming.  And I am so happy I am living during it.

Well said.  There is better material now (for free and easier to get) than there was back in the 70s.

Personally I'd reject the "rulings, not rules" one. I find that I have to make a lot less rulings with OSR games than with newer ones.

With old games there's specific rules for some things. Nice specific rules that don't require much of anything in the way of GM adjudication. And then there's no rules for other stuff so you have to make stuff up.

With new games there's vague and general rules for EVERYTHING but the GM has to make rulings all the time to apply those general rules to the specific situation you're in.

So in actual play with Old School games involves the GM making rulings some of the time while in newer games the GM is making rulings all the freaking time while using the skill rules or whatever as guidelines.

For me the second is a hell of a lot more about "rulings not rules" than the second. For me a lot of Old School is about the GM putting down the damn director's bullhorn and sitting back and being a reactive referee while a lot of newer games assume far more active GMing.

The only exception are those games that have vague and general rules for EVERYTHING and then declare that you don't have to making rulings to apply them to the specific situation because that doesn't matter, but screw those games. Those aren't fun.

Quote from: Daztur;846567Personally I'd reject the "rulings, not rules" one. I find that I have to make a lot less rulings with OSR games than with newer ones.

It sounds like you're trying to override and correct the rules of the newer games more often than their designers might have hoped.

The original context of the "rulings, not rules" mantra was in Finch's contrast between 3.x skill mechanics and how you handle things in Swords & Wizardry.  If someone doesn't like the results spelled out in 3.x (you rolled X on your jump check, so you jump Y feet*) and feels the need to set them aside, then there's going to be an awful lot of stuff to make rulings on as the skill system is both very broad and specific.

I think it's best to think of rulings not rules as about not having the broad, well defined rules that both the referee and players use.  In a traditional board game everyone plays by the same rules.  In an old school RPG, the referee applies the rules as needed and everyone agrees to abide by the referee's rulings.  The only real difference between a rule and a ruling is whether it was decided on during play or beforehand.  What Finch was getting at is that you don't have a well defined player facing mechanic for everything.

*http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

Quote from: Pat;8464959) The game has clear built in danger signals, that warn the players when the PCs are out of their depth. These appear in two main forms: Dungeon levels (level 2 is harder than level 1), and monsters (orcs are harder than goblins are harder than kobolds). The latter means no orc mooks and orc slaughterkilldeathmachines -- except for NPC parties, meeting an orc means you're facing a monster with 1 HD (there are leader types, but they're part of the lair structure).

I think there's a more common form of danger signal that shows up.  A seriously deadly attack or effect that catches the players off guard and tells them they are out of their depth.  Like if they go deep into a dungeon and the first creature they encounter reduces one of the characters to ash with a gout of fire.  Character death can be a danger signal to the entire group of players.  

Monsters that are nearly invincible to the player's attacks can also be a danger signal.  A powerful attack bouncing off a good AC or a non-magical weapon proving useless against a creature can also be danger signals on the defensive side of things.

Quote from: Pat;8464959) The game has clear built in danger signals, that warn the players when the PCs are out of their depth. These appear in two main forms: Dungeon levels (level 2 is harder than level 1), and monsters (orcs are harder than goblins are harder than kobolds). The latter means no orc mooks and orc slaughterkilldeathmachines -- except for NPC parties, meeting an orc means you're facing a monster with 1 HD (there are leader types, but they're part of the lair structure).

I think there's a more common form of danger signal that shows up.  A seriously deadly attack or effect that catches the players off guard and tells them they are out of their depth.  Like if they go deep into a dungeon and the first creature they encounter reduces one of the characters to ash with a gout of fire.  Character death can be a danger signal to the entire group of players.

Quote from: NathanIW;846566I don't have to be around for the birth of chess to enjoy it as a game.  And if it existed inside of personal experience, it existed.  As people experienced it.  There are people on this very forum who haven't departed from the approach described in this thread for 40+ years.

The point is that, continuing with your Chess analogy, is that over the centuries that it's been around, new strategies were found, new tactics, new methods to get the end results ad win.

Same thing applies here.  And I'd argue that these players' approach may not have changed, but they have and thus their experiences have changed, which in turns have changed how they play their favourite game.  Even if they deny or ignore it.

Life IS change.  Nothing stays the same, no matter how much we wish it to.

Personally, I like that it's changing, it also means it can improve for the better.

Actually like the 3.5ed Jump rule. Clear, simple and doesn`t require any adjudication, just a bit swingy, but a lot of other rules require DM adjudication pretty much all the time which sucks.

What I mean is stuff like:
0 DC = very easy
5 DC = easy

Etc. etc.

Give me open doors 1-2 on a d6 any day.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846571The point is that, continuing with your Chess analogy, is that over the centuries that it's been around, new strategies were found, new tactics, new methods to get the end results ad win.

Same thing applies here.  And I'd argue that these players' approach may not have changed, but they have and thus their experiences have changed, which in turns have changed how they play their favourite game.  Even if they deny or ignore it.

Life IS change.  Nothing stays the same, no matter how much we wish it to.

Personally, I like that it's changing, it also means it can improve for the better.

Very well said.  And I agree.  I don't think the OSR is about clinging to a calcified or rigid approach from the past.  It's fundamentally about embracing a free wheeling approach.

I also think the RPG play in the 70s was characterized by heterodoxy.  One of the ways AD&D was marketed was as a means of unifying the player base under a single approach.  I think that was a mistake, but there were commercial motivations that made it the approach TSR wanted at the time.

Quote from: Daztur;846572Actually like the 3.5ed Jump rule. Clear, simple and doesn`t require any adjudication, just a bit swingy, but a lot of other rules require DM adjudication pretty much all the time which sucks.

What do you think about the Swords & Wizardry rules for jumping?

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.

""Old School dates from 19XX until 20XX." - Translation: the date when either (a) the system I've always played went into a new edition or overhauled the setting or (b) I switched to playing this way cooler newer system.

""New School" dates from the explosion of indie games on the market" - Translation: it dates from when I picked my head up and noticed there were more game systems out there than I'd previously been aware of, especially when the Sunday afternoon gaming group wanted to check them out.

""New School" means a shift in focus to setting plot, as opposed to strictly character goals." - Translation: I've never particularly gamed in Tekumel, the Third Imperium, Glorantha or anything like that, but I'm sure they only involved dungeon crawls anyway.

Sorry, but damn near about everything the definitionists are trying to label "New School," someone was doing in the 1970s. Point buy? Check. Getting people out of the dungeons? Check. Storytelling? Check. Innovation? Check. Rules light? Hell, White Box D&D had that. Proliferation of new ideas? Christ on a crutch, Alarums & Excursions had heaps of them from 1975 on, and The Wild Hunt started shortly after that. Heaps of supplements and splatbooks? OD&D had those too. Indie games? Everyone, his sister and the family dog were churning out variants and homebrews like crazy.

Alright, I've given my take on what Old School/New School really is, but what I believe the serious advocates think it 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. Voila.

Folks, you know something? I GM a game (GURPS) that's 25 years old. It didn't pioneer a whole lot; there weren't many core mechanics that no one had ever before tried. It's sure as hell not obsolete. It wasn't the first game I played, and I've tried dozens of others, from OD&D to homebrews to published systems to games just out in the last few years. I can GM with any play style I want with it. Nothing prevents me from allowing character play free rein, just the same way that nothing prevented me last year from hauling a 31 year old homebrew dungeon out of mothballs and refurbishing it for a nostalgia spin.

Fuck the labels. Someone in 1985 might have described it as "new school;" some of the posters in this topic would call it "old school." The distinctions are meaningless, they're very arbitrary, and I'm waiting for the first poster to explain why we need them at all. Go out, play the games you want to play, have fun doing it, and who in the bloody hell cares whether your school is old or new?

Quote from: Ravenswing;846576The distinctions are meaningless, they're very arbitrary, and I'm waiting for the first poster to explain why we need them at all.

And yet when I go to a blog and see something like this somewhere on the page:



and then look at the content, it ends up meeting some common expectations.

What's it useful for?  To quickly identify information that may or may not be relevant to you.

I'm a huge RuneQuest fan.  Despite it being very old, I've come to accept that when people say "old school" or "OSR" or put an image like the one above on their blog, that I likely won't be seeing any RuneQuest content.

It's okay that the term is D&D-centric.  I've come to accept that and am okay that my pet game (RQ 2nd ed) isn't included by what most people mean when they use the term.  The fact that some things are included and others excluded when they're both from the 70s doesn't mean the term is broken, it means it's actually about something.

There, sticky rant over ...

But as far as the OP's laundry list goes, holes can be picked in a number of them.  The "heroes not superheroes" thing?

The first gaming book I ever bought was D&D's first edition of Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes.  It was published in 1976.  The volume attempted, in part, to solve a common issue in gaming circles of that day, and this paragraph in the foreword explains that:

"This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the 'Monty Hall' DM's.  Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are.  This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters.  When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?"

Of course, we know what happened there: far from being deterred, the players aforementioned 40+ level characters chortled in delight, shouting "Whoa, the most powerful GODS only have 300 hit points?  LET'S KILL 'EM AND TAKE THEIR STUFF!"  And did.

:boohoo: