Monte Cook's new Dungeonaday.com?

[Odhanan]

I think old school for some gamers is linked to some game design elements, for sure, to the extent that it influences the game in actual play. The particular game design elements and the way they interact with the game will greatly vary from one "old-schooler" to another, though.

I certainly believe that one can play an old school game using modern rulesets, including 3.5. I don't know if I particularly would be able to fully pull this off, but I think it is possible. If you take some product from say, Necro or Goodman, or build an old school module of your own, and are particularly gifted in providing a particular ambiance at the game table, it's totally feasible. Depends on the DM and players, in the end.

Now, as to the way Monte intended to use the term "old school", I'm not sure he actually intended to use it in its most orthodox, uncompromising sense. I think he was more alluding to such megadungeons as T1-4 or Castle Greyhawk as we've come to imagine its layout rather than anything else.

Personally, I'm all over dungeonaday.com. I've been really itching for some old school action lately, and I think dungeonaday.com + C&C is going to be pure Win at my gaming table. I know of at least another person interested by Monte's DaD (pun intended) who wants to run it with AD&D. We sure will be providing feedback to Monte about DaD and its adaptability to these rules sets, provide some variants, discuss the various implications of the design, et cetera.

What's important to understand is that, if DaD is Monte's offering first and foremost, there's clearly the intent to build an interactive, collaborative community around it as well. I can say that among those who will ultimately participate to this community, old-schoolers will be present and vocal. Hopefully, this will create a feedback loop that will ultimately provide satisfaction to other old-timers out there.

 

[Maggan]

What's important to understand is that, if DaD is Monte's offering first and foremost, there's clearly the intent to build an interactive, collaborative community around it as well. I can say that among those who will ultimately participate to this community, old-schoolers will be present and vocal. Hopefully, this will create a feedback loop that will ultimately provide satisfaction to other old-timers out there.

And as a bridge between the "old school cool cats" and the "new edge modern dudes", this might be something that benefits both "sides". It might make more gamers interested in the "old school movement", and the producers of such free efforts will get a chance to show off their true colours and dazzle more people with their leet skillz ... erm ... good old dungeoncrafting skills, is what I meant.

So, I would think that to the "old school movement" this could be an opportunity, and not another enemy to fight. There are enough of those already.

(I confess to not being rocked mightily by old school, having only played since 1982, with systems and play styles that would not qualify ro any definition of old school. But there's always the chance to woo me with stellar stuff).

/M

 

[JamesM]

For me, mechanics has VERY little to do with it. Necromancer Games had 3.x adventures that ran and felt very old school. Goodman Games' adventures had that old school feel as well.

Are these disqualified from your definition of old school because they use a rule-set of mechanics that you don't approve of?

Not at all. In principle, I agree that old school has a lot to do with a mindset one brings to play, meaning that it is transferable to other rules sets, which is why I like some of the modules that both Necromancer and Goodman put out during the 3e era, even though I'm not super keen on those rules. That said, I do think that some mechanics help to bolster the old school mindset better than others. Contrariwise, some mechanics detract from it.

Can you define what you mean by old school so that I have a frame of reference to work with?

Sure. For me, old school games are those that place greater importance on referee judgment calls rather than on "rules as written," give weight to player (as opposed to character) skill in resolving in-game problems, and whose mechanics don't see "balance" as an ideal, let alone an attainable one. 3e wasn't really designed with any of these principles in mind, which is why I tend to be skeptical of claims that it's compatible with the old ways.

But notice I said "skeptical." I don't think it's necessarily impossible to run 3e in something that I'd recognize as old school, but it'd likely mean either changing or outright ignoring many aspects of those rules (or so it seems to me). I am willing to be convinced I'm mistaken on this point, which is why I will be paying attention to Dungeonaday.com to see whether it's something I'd feel comfortable calling old school. Honestly, I'd love to be mistaken, because I'd like to see the old ways take root in a serious way outside the little corner of the hobby I call home.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I agree with you.

But I note you mention Necromancer Games as one of the companies that's long been doing "1st edition feel."

Previously, Monte really hasn't tried to claim that crown. He's done a lot of marketing and made sure his name is associated with many of his books including those that he hasn't written but has "presented" as part of his marketing. Now there may be some exceptions. I know the book of planar locations he did was in many ways a "nod" to Planescape of yore, but I don't think that's what many people mean when they refer to "old school".

Unless Monte's referring to 3.5 as being "old schol" now.

Interesting. I've been playing D&D since 1978. Not as long as others who consider themselves grognards, but certainly long enough to say that I kicked it "old school" with my 1e AD&D games.

To me, old school as far little to do with mechanics and far more to do with the mindset of how a DM and players interact, how the campaign is delivered and played by the players, the shared experience of adventures and game sessions that were built around familiar elements, and how these "old school" elements are presented.

Now, by old school elements, I mean many things. But mostly I am talking about dungeon crawls, and environment/fluff-light adventures. (Oh and you can also add in a few pages of house-rules - some obscure, some obvious - that varied from gametable to gametable. )

For me, mechanics has VERY little to do with it. Necromancer Games had 3.x adventures that ran and felt very old school. Goodman Games' adventures had that old school feel as well.

Are these disqualified from your definition of old school because they use a rule-set of mechanics that you don't approve of?

Can you define what you mean by old school so that I have a frame of reference to work with?

 

[Odhanan]

Unless Monte's referring to 3.5 as being "old schol" now.

No, I don't think that's what he meant either. I really think he was refering to dungeons like ToEE and Castle Greyhawk.

 

[catsclaw227]

Sure. For me, old school games are those that place greater importance on referee judgment calls rather than on "rules as written," give weight to player (as opposed to character) skill in resolving in-game problems, and whose mechanics don't see "balance" as an ideal, let alone an attainable one. 3e wasn't really designed with any of these principles in mind, which is why I tend to be skeptical of claims that it's compatible with the old ways.

RAW
One of my biggest complaints with 3.x was the implied supposition that the RAW took precedence over a DM judgment call and that it was more important that everything follow RAW.

I often times mentioned in my games that sometimes the NPC won't use the same "rules" as players, in that they won't always have the same spells, sometimes they will use an item or effect that isn't identifiable nor available to the PCs. It allowed me to better "go with the flow" in game and make adjustments on the fly if necessary. I didn't always want to be beholden to the RAW, yet didn't want to have to prepare a 10 page set of rules that I would then STILL be bound by.

Player skill vs. PC skill
I like to give more weight to player skill than assumed in 3.x, but I generally put them on the same playing field. I would give bonuses and penalties to situations when they needed to make a roll, and would often listen to what they do and make a judgement instead of rely on skills. That said, if a player was having his 8 int PC make intelligent decisions about how to handle a situation, or a player starts to wax philosophically with his 8wis 10cha PC, I would call shenanigans.

It's not just player skill, it also has to be PC skill as well, otherwise we would find all the social skills get dumped by smart, charismatic players.

Balance
Regarding balance? I like it. I didn't like that a player could choose a class or race combination that would cripple his PC and it was considered NORMAL. I am not talking about a player that chooses to do this with the full knowledge of the ruleset, but more a new person that has no idea and finds that their PC sucks most of the time while others reign supreme.

Lack of balance isn't old school. It's just bad design.

 

[JamesM]

You know the kind of game you enjoy and why you enjoy it and that's cool.

My reply wasn't meant to be an argument in favor of one approach or another; it was intended solely to elucidate some of the most widely acknowledged characteristics of old school games and play, as well as why I'm skeptical of calling any v.3.5 game or product "old school."

Again, this isn't meant as a disparagement so much as an acknowledgment of the fact that there are differences, both philosophical and mechanical, that separate older games from newer ones.

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

I LOVE Ptolus. I think its the single greatest RPG product made.

And I'm not sure I get this whole "old school" vibe thing ppl talk about. But I can't see spending any amount of money for a basic dungeon crawl. I don't even understand why anyone would want to play a game traveling from room to room battling monster after monster for no real reason or with no link. Maybe this isn't what MC meant.

But I certainly look forward to the reviews of MC's new endeavor.

...maybe I'm missing something.

Totally OFFTOPIC: I'd love to see a complete 4E remake of Ptolus. And it'd have to be a remake, there is no conversion for that. Maybe if this new thing doesn't work and MC needs some cash, he could sell his soul and sign the GSL. ...or whatever.

 

[ruemere]

Two impressions of Monte's initiative:

1. 7$ is a bit steep for an adventure. Yes, it's not much but given our playtime and little stuff I inject into our sessions, an adventure of 30+ pages can last us months. I just do not play by the book... I like some burden liftend from my shoulders by pregenerated stuff, but I do not just read out adventures to my players.

2. I am not into Ctrl+F, "click-a-link" and "Submit" during course of play. I know that electronic aids are there for me, it's just that I prefer it to be written, printed or improvised instead of generated on the fly. Basically, GM's time during session is scarce and wasting it reading instant material is just this: wasting. That's why I fail to see appeal of any online documentation or generators.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Cergorach]

1. 7$ is a bit steep for an adventure. Yes, it's not much but given our playtime and little stuff I inject into our sessions, an adventure of 30+ pages can last us months. I just do not play by the book... I like some burden liftend from my shoulders by pregenerated stuff, but I do not just read out adventures to my players.

The old 3.5E adventures where $9.99, so $7 is cheaper, but I don't think you can really compare the two. But you fail to see the real value here, for only $7 a month you can have an adventure that will last you years upon years, at this rate you'll have enough material to last you well into retirement ;-) And I seriously doubt that many folks read the boxed text from the adventures, I might have at one time when I was a whee young pup of a DM at my twelve years of age, but that was a long time ago and didn't last long (the reading aloud part).

2. I am not into Ctrl+F, "click-a-link" and "Submit" during course of play. I know that electronic aids are there for me, it's just that I prefer it to be written, printed or improvised instead of generated on the fly. Basically, GM's time during session is scarce and wasting it reading instant material is just this: wasting. That's why I fail to see appeal of any online documentation or generators.

You do understand you can use this to prepare before the session and use a relatively new invention, called a printer, to 'print' stuff to use in your adventures? I generally see these electronic aids as tools to prepare a session before it starts...