A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming

[mattingly]

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/3019000/3019374/1/print/3019374.pdf

[Curufea]

Nice!

[penemue]

Oh my...
those zen moments take me back.
That's EXACTLY how I ran things then and I'm prone to running things like this now. That's probably why nobody under 30 ever lasts long in my gaming group.

[JohnTaber]

Too funny! :D

[Supreme Serpent]

I use a mix of Old and New, and suspect most here do as well.

1) The Ming Vase example is a good one - when you can make the situation/encounter more interesting, you should generally do so. There's no rules for the mace hit knocking the skeleton's head off, making the skeleton fight blindly while the head bounces over knocking over an oil lamp and starting a fire, but it sure is fun to do it that way! :D

2) If a player describes what they're doing in a way that I feel it should have a bonus or a penalty, it will get one. Tying an anvil to your back before trying to jump is a bad idea, taking time to carefully judge the distance and the traction of your launch area might help.

3) What I don't like is the much more total focus on the player vs the character in pretty much any non-combat situation. I've run into this before, and it can be incredibly frustrating. If a character has chemistry at 17-, the player shouldn't be required to discuss with the GM how he's going to facilitate bonding of the acid with something else to render it inert. The character should have a good shot of doing it, subject to rolls and bonuses/penalties. Ifa character is a Dwarf and grew up in Dwarven society they should have a good understanding of it and wouldn't accidentally make serious mistakes about it. It's the GMs job to help facilitate these sorts of things and feed information to the player in question if appropriate. Asking the player to know everything the character should know and only letting the character use their abilities at all if the player describes the action correctly is going to far. In the trap example, it may as well have been a fighter or a mage doing it, why have the thief along at all? It's just as silly as expecting the mage's player to actually know how to throw a fireball.

4) Yes, I understand that points 2 and 3 can seem contradictory. :D But it's more a matter of degree than absolutes. Clever = bonus, not clever = now has GMs permission to use knowledge/ability character should have.

[Blue]

Wow. Reminds me that we were "stunting" and "storytelling" (without calling it that) in the era before everything was reduced to a die roll.

[Lord Mhoram]

Reading the Zen moments helped me realize why I fled Old School gaming as fast and hard as I could.

I like rules over ruling because who knows if the GM is going to rule differently in a similar situation. I hate that uncertainty.

It's all about what the character can do, not what I can do - I game to escape into a world where the character can do things I can't - making me rely on my skill (of any sort really) defeats that purpose.

I like Superheroic - I play high fantasy and Superheroes not gritty fantasy.

I like to strive for at least some game balance.

The old school approach is just not for me.

[teh bunneh]

I3) What I don't like is the much more total focus on the player vs the character in pretty much any non-combat situation. I've run into this before, and it can be incredibly frustrating. If a character has chemistry at 17-, the player shouldn't be required to discuss with the GM how he's going to facilitate bonding of the acid with something else to render it inert. The character should have a good shot of doing it, subject to rolls and bonuses/penalties. Ifa character is a Dwarf and grew up in Dwarven society they should have a good understanding of it and wouldn't accidentally make serious mistakes about it. It's the GMs job to help facilitate these sorts of things and feed information to the player in question if appropriate. Asking the player to know everything the character should know and only letting the character use their abilities at all if the player describes the action correctly is going to far. In the trap example, it may as well have been a fighter or a mage doing it, why have the thief along at all? It's just as silly as expecting the mage's player to actually know how to throw a fireball.

There's also the problem that the characters are immersed in the game world. The players are merely playing it. If the GM forgets to describe something crucial (or worse yet, if the player fails to ask), then it can become a lesson in frustration.

That whole "I pour water on the floor and see if it shows the outline of a trap door" thing... What if the GM says, "Nope, the water doesn't do anything," and then the character falls down the trap door. "Oh, hey, you forgot to ask if one of the keystones along the wall was slightly indented. If you had mentioned that, you might've found the trap door!" :rolleyes:

Yeah. I like to have people describe their actions, and I like to throw little bonuses and penalties in there based on what they're doing, but I'm glad Old School Gaming has gone the way of the dodo.

[Toadmaster]

Reading the Zen moments helped me realize why I fled Old School gaming as fast and hard as I could.

I like rules over ruling because who knows if the GM is going to rule differently in a similar situation. I hate that uncertainty.

It's all about what the character can do, not what I can do - I game to escape into a world where the character can do things I can't - making me rely on my skill (of any sort really) defeats that purpose.

I like Superheroic - I play high fantasy and Superheroes not gritty fantasy.

I like to strive for at least some game balance.

The old school approach is just not for me.


Exactly, I look at game rules as the game worlds physics. It may not match "reality" but at least within the game there is some consistancy to provide a reasonable expectation of how an action will play out. I guess I run across a few too many GMs who had a very peculiar version of reality they forced onto the game.


I also take a little offense at the claim this is "Old school vs New school" gaming, I've been playing since '78 so I believe I fall well with the "old school" time frame, but neither style fits the gaming I've done unless you count Zork. Its not all about dice rolls or describing things and having the GM make stuff up.

Rules are there for consistancy, there is a time to make stuff up and a time to follow the rules as written, a good GM knows which is which.

[tkdguy]

I run my games a lot like this. I strive for some game balance and resort to dice too, but I find that having too many of the rules gets in the way of the game itself. It's easier to come up with a ruling, although I do try to be as fair as possible.

I also prefer older editions of D&D, which are lighter on rules than the newer versions. I gave 3rd Edition a fair shake; I have several of the books. But I found having all those rules were not to my liking.

In Hero terms, I definitely prefer heroic campaigns to superheroic ones. The nice thing about the Hero system is that you can include what you want and discard the rest. I find the older editions of AD&D were like that too. 3E and beyond, not so much.

As usual, YMMV.

[Ghost Archer]

There are dice? I think I have a bag someplace. When was the last time I used them . . . damn I am getting old. Even when running/playing a game online I never roll dice any more. That make me Old School or Modern?

[Vondy]

Rules?

[tkdguy]

There are dice? I think I have a bag someplace. When was the last time I used them . . . damn I am getting old. Even when running/playing a game online I never roll dice any more. That make me Old School or Modern?

Early modern, perhaps, since diceless games didn't make much headway.


Rules?

A few. Keep in mind houseruling has been the norm since rpgs began.

[BlackSword]

2) If a player describes what they're doing in a way that I feel it should have a bonus or a penalty, it will get one. Tying an anvil to your back before trying to jump is a bad idea, taking time to carefully judge the distance and the traction of your launch area might help.
Yeah, pretty much, if a player is better able to describe what they are doing I think they should get a bonus, at the very least because it makes the game much better than, "I roll streetwise to find the burglar," as opposed to "I am going to put out word that I am a buyer looking for rare gems." I have been in several games where a player buys up streetwise (or other skill) to a high level and then treats it like a 'find plot' skill roll, without any attempt to roleplay the skill. Do I expect a player to know how to find blood diamonds on the black market, no, but I expect them to use some imagination (isn't that part of why we game) to solve problems better than dice.


That whole "I pour water on the floor and see if it shows the outline of a trap door" thing... What if the GM says, "Nope, the water doesn't do anything," and then the character falls down the trap door. "Oh, hey, you forgot to ask if one of the keystones along the wall was slightly indented. If you had mentioned that, you might've found the trap door!" :rolleyes:
It depends on the character and skills of the character performing it. If the PC has no skills related to finding trap doors, then I would think the 'pour water' description was, "I saw this once" type of performance, and if it fails, it fails. If it was a PC with finding concealed objects skills, then I might recommend that there are other ways to look for a trapdoor, if he still insists, well I think many skilled people are sometimes blinded by what they think the obvious solution is, and fail to think outside of their already preconceived 'solution.'

[ghost-angel]

I like.... both ways?

I play Hero because there's enough rules that I don't have to be a genius to play one. (a point often made while playing my current Champions character. . .)

On the other hand, if I want to go descriptive I go all the way. Like Amber, of which I've had three really really good experiences and two experiences where I'm pretty sure having my head beaten in with a hammer would have been more fun.

And I've recently found Nobilis, which is like Amber with just enough rules to prevent total disaster. But still - with the wrong group either game is likely to make me take a long hard look at that hammer. . .

Which boils down to: there's a time and place for either style, but you have to bring the right people.

[Vondy]

A few. Keep in mind houseruling has been the norm since rpgs began.

Hell, even our fanfic style PBEM has some rules, though guidelines might be more accurate. I do, however, think there is some merit to the criticism of rules creep. While having a good idea of what the character can do is important, and some strong guidelines for resolution are useful, I don't think "a rule for everything" is the answer - and that it does negatively impact creativity not just on the GM's part when he's "ruling," but also on the player's part when they are deciding what to do. While rules may provide a safety net for players with trust issues, and may curb abusive GM's, they also reach a point when they become restrictive. And my usual question is: "if you don't trust each-other why are you playing together?" For a good game you need rules and trust in dynamic tension. Too many rules can ruin that tension just as much as too much Gaming Operations Director.

[Vondy]

I like.... both ways?

/snippage

Which boils down to: there's a time and place for either style, but you have to bring the right people.

Word.

[tkdguy]

Hell, even our fanfic style PBEM has some rules, though guidelines might be more accurate. I do, however, think there is some merit to the criticism of rules creep. While having a good idea of what the character can do is important, and some strong guidelines for resolution are useful, I don't think "a rule for everything" is the answer - and that it does negatively impact creativity not just on the GM's part when he's "ruling," but also on the player's part when they are deciding what to do. While rules may provide a safety net for players with trust issues, and may curb abusive GM's, they also reach a point when they become restrictive. And my usual question is: "if you don't trust each-other why are you playing together?" For a good game you need rules and trust in dynamic tension. Too many rules can ruin that tension just as much as too much Gaming Operations Director.
That's what old-school gaming is, at least according to several grognards in another board. Also, since there is room for interpretation in the older games, you're more likely to get a "So that's how you do it? Cool! Here's my way of doing it..." attitude rather than a "You're doing it all wrong!" attitude (not like the latter never happened in the old days, mind you), much like the way we do it in the HERO System.

[Vondy]

That's what old-school gaming is, at least according to several grognards in another board. Also, since there is room for interpretation in the older games, you're more likely to get a "So that's how you do it? Cool! Here's my way of doing it..." attitude rather than a "You're doing it all wrong!" attitude (not like the latter never happened in the old days, mind you), much like the way we do it in the HERO System.

I think its a matter of personal experience. I had the former experience far more than the latter with old-school gaming, which is probably why, even though I love Hero, I'm very comfortable flying free-form.

[Lord Mhoram]

I think its a matter of personal experience. I had the former experience far more than the latter with old-school gaming, which is probably why, even though I love Hero, I'm very comfortable flying free-form.

I've never had that. All I ran into in "old Schoolers" is one-true-wayism. I quit gaming for a few years because of it, then went to collage and found Champions. Never looked back. :)

I can go freeform with the wife, but that is about the only person I would.

[lapsedgamer]

I liked the old way of doing things except when you ran into an A-hole DM. You know, the guy who was bound and determined to make sure that nothing you tried would ever work unless it was what he had in mind. The same guy who would not provide any clues that would tell you about the one in a million solution he had devised which was the only one that would work. The same guy who would laugh at you when your group died, telling you how simple his desired solution was even though it was completely counterintuitive and had at no point been even vaguely hinted at during the hours of play lead up to your deaths.

I like rules except when they get in the way. Either method is good. It just requires the right mix of DM and players to make it work.

[Ternaugh]

I lean more toward the Old School freeform, though it's comfortable to have a good framework to rely on. It's probably why I've used Hero so much. My games tend to be more cinematic, so if I can get a player to describe what their character is doing, it will often influence how successful they are. If it's a really good description, then it can make for really great gaming.

I remember, years ago with 4th edition Hero, I had the party needing information from a gang that was holed up in a really seedy tavern. As the group was standing outside deciding what to do, one of the players announced,

"(The name of his Dwarf fighter) kicks in the door, and throws the axe that's in his hand at the first person he sees. He'll grab the backup axe that's in back of his shield and throw it at the next person. Now that he has their attention, he'll grab his hammer and continue to march in, toward the tavern keeper, saying in a low voice, 'tell me what I want and you might live.'"

He got the information. :D

JoeG

[ghost-angel]

One way to play into a Player's strengths while having Mechanics for both Physical and Social Conflict is to cross bonuses.

Say Player Bob knows about and can describe combat well, but his current character he's decided isn't so good a combatant as a face man, sadly Bob isn't good with words - much less on the spot.

Player Joe is a quick talker, but kind of a couch potato and while he can tell a handgun from a rifle, that's about as far as it goes and he's not very good with abstract combat (most of his combats are "I swing and do X damage"), but he's playing the groups brute (because he likes the idea of beating something up, even vicariously.

Give Bob a bonus to interaction skills for well described combat actions (his or if other players don't mind others as well) and allow Joe to either help Bob with OOC suggestions or give him combat bonuses when he helps the group that way - even if InCharacter his brute is standing around waiting for the talkies to get on with it. . .

In other words, allow the players to use their group dynamics with each other OOC, and give bonuses to the Characters Strengths - not the players.

Of course, there are always those that just show up to roll dice and there's not much you can do. But this is ultimately an interactive past time and you can't ignore those who really get into it.

[ZootSoot]

Been gaming since the mid-seventies, old-school gaming as described is beer and pretzel gaming. Might as well have a poker party. ROLE-PLAYING game not role-playing GAME is my interest. If my headsmasher is not mush smarter than his axe I should be penalized not rewarded for having him come up wioth clever solutions.

I still remember (and still wonder why I diod not beat this cretin bloody) a game in which the characters were highly experienced black-op mercenaries but whose ambush was discovered and everybody killed because the players did not know to blacken the ends of the characters' guns in order to keep the light from glinting off them.

The characters should know their world better than the players do, many rules are an effort to establish this fact. Diceless games are fun . . .for the gamemaster.

[eternal_sage]

.... wow! other than resource management and an emphasis on character of metagame, it appears the new World of Darkness is an old school RPG! AMAZING! and its been my experience that old schoolers hate it... how bizarre! :rolleyes:

i tend to disallow any course of action that does not seem in character. i also tend to use the dice roll mechanics only when the players are stumped. after all, it is the characters, not the players involved. i'm right there with you on just about everything else. however, i would never wish to play in someone else's "old school" campaign, because i do not trust most people not to be complete ***hats when they are allowed any kind of control beyond what they are allowed via rules, backed up by experience. my group is made up completely of other GMs (we finally got the last hold out to run a game of 4th ed... converted him to HERO forever :D), and we all pretty much agree on style, etc. with another group i would stick more closely to the books myself.

and i pretty much say that resource management is the opposite of fun. if i wanted to keep track of imaginary money, i would be becoming an accountant, not a programmer. it doesn't add anything to the game but mindless tallying and inventory juggling. you never see the Hero of any fantasy novel, even any low fantasy i've read (i could be wrong) actually counting up his coppers, etc. bleech.

[tkdguy]

Okay, I can't help adding some fuel to this fire. I think the first post in this thread (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14234) is over the top, but it's an interesting thread all in all. Obviously, people have different ideas on what old-school really is.

There are a few simulacrum games out there, which are either free or inexpensive. Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game are based on the classic D&D game, while OSRIC emulates AD&D. I'll provide links when I find them.

Edit: Here's (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-this-how-d-is-supposed-to-be-played.html) a blog that muses about old-school gaming. It's well written, although there's a bit of profanity.

[Sweeper]

Heh. I do remember this kind of play when I first started. I was taught how to play under one of the Old Guard, (my Dad). I definitely want to keep this in mind if I ever get my SF game going.

[SSgt Baloo]

I liked the old way of doing things except when you ran into an A-hole DM. You know, the guy who was bound and determined to make sure that nothing you tried would ever work unless it was what he had in mind. The same guy who would not provide any clues that would tell you about the one in a million solution he had devised which was the only one that would work. The same guy who would laugh at you when your group died, telling you how simple his desired solution was even though it was completely counterintuitive and had at no point been even vaguely hinted at during the hours of play lead up to your deaths.

I like rules except when they get in the way. Either method is good. It just requires the right mix of DM and players to make it work.

Sing it, brother!

The advantage of having learned role-play back in the dark ages of gaming was that you learned to pay attention to details, work well with others (even that rules lawyer/metagamer/munchkin who made every session VERY DIFFICULT!) You learned that a group expecting combat needed to be ready to protect the softshelled wizard, that you needed to soften an enemy up by pelting them with ranged attacks before engaging in melee, and that the guy with all the charisma was the one you designated as the "front man" even if he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

You learned that if everybody pooled their resources you could overcome incredible odds. You learned that consuming adult beverages often resulted in less-than-optimal decision-making. You learned that although you could stay awake for 24 hours, you'd regret it later. You learned to have fun with other people and some paper, pencils and dice.

[Killer Shrike]

Eh. Like anything else, the middle road is generally the better approach -- take the best parts of all ways and discard the dross.

A lack of rules is not a valid excuse for a surplus of whim-based adjudication. Consistency is valuable.

A surplus of rules is not a valid excuse for a lack of judicious improvisation. Flexibility is valuable.


The real problem is that neither common sense nor intelligence is conferable by a rulebook, regardless of which side of the GM's screen a person happens to reside. Rules are an attempt by a third party to inject their preferred means of resolution, and acceptance of the rules by all members of the play group supposedly represent an appeal to that putatively disinterested third party to resolve disputes. Game systems have increasingly moved in this direction over the decades, from a framework for expressing ideas and interacting collaboratively to more of a contractual definition of allowed actions and expected outcomes.

In my opinion, any group composed of players (GM inclusive) that are interested in collaborating towards the shared goal of an enjoyable experience will have fun with just about any set of rules no matter how bad (even if the game itself isnt fun, fun can still be had finding that out). Similarly, no matter how good the game system a group locked into an antagonistic dynamic between the players and the GM is doomed to an unenjoyable experience. Note that I mean strife between the players themselves, out of character / out of game. Strife / antagonism in character / in game is perfectly acceptable if its fun.


IMO, etc.

[starblaze]

Yeah, I know what you mean. The best game I ever remember having is one using the 2nd AD&D rules that IMO has the most illogical, broken rules set I have ever dealt with and I still had alot of fun.

[errol_barean]

Reading the Zen moments helped me realize why I fled Old School gaming as fast and hard as I could.

I like rules over ruling because who knows if the GM is going to rule differently in a similar situation. I hate that uncertainty.

It's all about what the character can do, not what I can do - I game to escape into a world where the character can do things I can't - making me rely on my skill (of any sort really) defeats that purpose.

I like Superheroic - I play high fantasy and Superheroes not gritty fantasy.

I like to strive for at least some game balance.

The old school approach is just not for me.
Funny you feel this way, because there are plenty of times when I wish I could turn back time & return to 'old school' gaming. I know I'd miss the graphics, etc ... but when I was first getting into it ... for whatever reason it was sooo exciting. It still is, but it isn't the same for sure.
Cheers :smoke:

[tkdguy]

I never actually left old-school gaming myself, aside from a brief stint with D&D 3.0, which I thought was okay, but wasn't my preference.

Have you checked out the Dragonsfoot forums? They're for older editions of D&D and AD&D.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/

[Enforcer84]

Old school/New School. Just as long as I can game.

[greenbriar]

As per SSGT Baloos point I started gaming in 74. years later i joined a group. They couldn't believe how fast I fit in and started contributing to the welfare of the party.

[tkdguy]

I just got to run 1st Edition AD&D last night with a couple of friends. I playtested the sword & sorcery campaign that was brewing in my head since last year. It was a spontaneous game, so I ad-libbed the whole adventure. Still it was a lot of fun.

I realized how much I'm used to 2nd Edition when I helped a character create a ranger. I had him roll d10 instead of d8 for hit points. :o

I also ran into a fan of 2nd Edition and told him about the Dragonsfoot forums. :)

[Teflon Billy]

I just got to run 1st Edition AD&D last night with a couple of friends. I playtested the sword & sorcery campaign that was brewing in my head since last year. It was a spontaneous game, so I ad-libbed the whole adventure. Still it was a lot of fun.

I realized how much I'm used to 2nd Edition when I helped a character create a ranger. I had him roll d10 instead of d8 for hit points. :o

I also ran into a fan of 2nd Edition and told him about the Dragonsfoot forums. :)Dragonsfoot forum?

TB

[tkdguy]

A forum for pre-3rd Edition D&D.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/

[zornwil]

This is a very different take on old-school/new-school than I would have expected, except I think that the intent is really to say old- and new-school WITHIN so-called traditional gaming. The so-called new/modern school doesn't seem different than 20 years ago, and "old school" is somehow a combination of a repudiation of mechanical rules-recitation in play as well as nothing more than a justification for "before we thought this out" as far as my read of it goes. As to the former, certainly even in what this text claims as "modern" gaming, there's a lot of narrative without-tactical-rules-recitation play, and somehow this text to me confuses the differences between a more gamist approach and a more narrative one rather than the differences between actual systems (the reading of the so-called contrasting examples) as well as the differences between ignoring/setting aside/making exceptions from the rules and strict rules usage. It's not clear further what the article recommends, is it saying that old style play has an advantage with certain systems and if so, then which systems, based on what criteria? It does mention some systems, but I'm not clear on why I would play HERO with the modern style versus d20 with the old school style (though I believe the implication of the article is HERO is best served with the old school style, making rulings based on a text which only the GM really needs to read, adn that d20 is best served with the modern style).

Although what's perhaps most amusing is that to me what the article cites as "old schools" is where so-called indie gaming has pretty much gone in some large part except that it more strictly rests on "rules as written," just that those rules promote making rulings more explicitly.

[Zeropoint]

I thought it was pretty clear that main point of old school gaming is to ensure that no one is having FUN in the middle of what is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[tkdguy]

That's only what the new school gamers would have you believe.