Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 1 Failure and Story

For me, the difference between Old School and anything else is not in the rules, but in attitude. Is failure, even losing, possible, or is it not? Is it a game, or is it a storytelling session?

View attachment 103704
​

Notice it’s “storytelling”, not storymaking. Every RPG involves a story, the question is, who creates the story, the GM or the players?
​

Inevitably, 40-some installments into this column, “Old School” would come up.

“ . . . role-playing games do not have plots. They have situations at the campaign, adventure, and encounter level which the players are free to interact with however they wish– as long as they accept the consequences!” - Jeffro Johnson (author of the book Appendix N)​

This will be in three (oversized) parts, because understanding of this topic is fundamental to discourse about what some of us (at least) call RPGs, and there’s too much for one or two columns (I tried). I think of a Quora question that asked what a GM can do when a player’s character does something insane or ludicrously inappropriate during a game. The answers varied widely depending on the goals of the answerer. The Old School answer is, “let the character suffer the consequences of the action”; but for those on the New School side, it was a much more complex problem, as the character’s actions would make it hard if not impossible for the GM to tell the story he had devised for the adventure.

Likely everyone reading this has seen and perhaps discussed the term “Old School” in connection with RPGs. When I started to reconnect with RPG fandom a few years ago, I wasn’t sure what “Old School” meant. There seem to be many definitions, but I now see the fundamental divide as not about rules. Rather, it’s about the attitude of the GM, and of the players, toward losing and failure. That’s at the root of Jeffro’s rant, though he puts it in terms of plot and story, which are closely related.

As I said, this is in three parts. The second will talk about rules, GMing, and pacing, and about non-RPGs reflecting the two schools. The third part will talk about differences in actual gameplay.

I’m not going to be “one true way” the way Jeffro is (“thieves must have d4 hit dice” is one of his rants). I write about RPGs as games, not as story-telling aids or playgrounds, but I am describing, not prescribing even as I obviously prefer the Old School. Let’s proceed.

If it’s a game (Old School (OS)), there’s a significant chance you can lose, you can fail. If it’s a story session, with no chance you can lose, it’s something else. This is like a co-operative board game that you cannot lose: why bother to play?

In terms of story, in OS the players write their own story, with the benefit of the GM’s assistance. The GM sets up a situation and lets the players get on with it. (This is sometimes called [FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]"[/FONT][/FONT]sandbox[FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]"[/FONT][/FONT] in video games, though video games tend to impose an overall story as a limitation of using computer programming instead of a human GM.) The other extreme is when the GM tells the players a story through the game. (In video games this is called a linear game, where the story always ends up the same way.)

If a GM is Old School and runs the same adventure for several different groups, the results will probably vary wildly. If the GM is at the other extreme, the overall shape of the adventure will be the same each time, with variance only in the details.

Old School adventures are usually highly co-operative, because the characters will DIE if they don’t cooperate. New School doesn’t require cooperation, you’re going to survive anyway.

Not surprisingly, as the hobby has grown, the proportion of wargamers (now a small hobby) has decreased drastically. Many players are not even hobby gamers, that is, they’re not quite “gamers” in the old sense because the only game they play is their RPG(s). Many people want their games to be stories, so the shift from Old School to something else is not surprising.

D&D 5e bears the marks of the newer playing methods, as there’s lots of healing as well as the ridiculous cleric spell revivify for mere fifth level clerics.

There are all kinds of shades of the two extremes, obviously. And all kinds of ways of running RPGs. Next time, I’ll talk about more differences between Old School and newer ways of playing such as Rules and Pacing, and compare with non-RPGs.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[5ekyu]

"Oh yeah? Well, my anecdotal evidence could beat up your anecdotal evidence..."

(1) Simply reducing the nature of the Fate Point (and Trouble Compels) economy to a metagame bargain seems overly reductionistic, almost done for the sake of being able to dismiss the system on the sole basis of the taboo "metagame" word. It seems orthogonal to any actual debate of substance regarding the merits of the system.

As a roleplaying game, which Fate most definitely is, Fate wants to push the characters (and players) during play to make choices and lean into the drama of the fiction. The game is not only interested in what in-game complications you accept, but also the complications during play that you pay to reject. It's interested in what moments you find important enough to spend Fate points on in-game to push your character to succeed. When do you reroll? When do you push yourself a bit more (+2)? As such, Fate points are meant to highlight moments of heightened dramatic play.

(2) Fate's Troubles are not strictly speaking "flaws," though they can be written as such. A Trouble like "Manners of a Goat" will likely behave more like a behavioral flaw of a character that the GM may compel during a moment of tense negotiations. But if this players is indicating that they have "Manners of a Goat," then they are telling the GM that they want this character aspect to arise in play and complicate their character's story. They also have the option of leaning into that flaw of their own volition without the GM. However, the Trouble "Gotta Look Out for My Little Brother" would likely not operate as one would expect a character flaw. Or a Trouble may even link to a NPC: "Foiled Again by Doktor von Greed!", which would likewise not be a character flaw.

Furthermore, part of the problem with pre-bought "flaws" in other systems is that players often pick maginally significant flaws or drawbacks without guarantee in play to rack up points for better benefits. Your character's arachnophobia may never show up in-game, but you were after the Super Strength perk you bought with that flaw anyway. The nature of Fate is that Troubles are dramatic complications that players are indicating that they want to see play in-game. And players want them to see play because they are a good way of generating Fate points, which players will spend to push their characters further. Characters can have other character flaws that are not writtens as Troubles or aspects. Nothing is stopping them. Troubles are simply the ones the player has indicated they want the GM (or others players) to engage as a dramatically character-defining one. And it can change as the story progresses. You want to solve your brother's murder. Then you find out who did it, but now your Trouble changes to reflect that you want vengeance against them.

(3) It's easy to play Fate points in ways that don't force the player to drop out of character, even for behavioral situations. The GM looks at the player with the Trouble, "Manners of a Goat," and asks them, "Bronan the Barbarian. How are you feeling right now? These negotations have dragged on, and the priest clearly is being dismissive of you, refusing to talk to you in favor of your companions. Are you getting irritated at this point in the negotiations with this priest of the tribe?" Bronan the Barbarian: "You know what? Yes, I am." And then Bronan the Barbarian insults the head priest during negotiations. The GM slips Bronan's player a Fate point. OR Bronan the Barbarian: "No. I know the negotiation is too important for the region. I remain silent but bredugingly grit my teeth and curse under my breath." And Bronan's PC slips the GM a Fate point.

It is much as I believe [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] once said in another conversation on the subject. The more experience you have with the system, the more that this becomes second nature and you seemlessly remain in the headspace of your character while engaging the Fate point mechanic. Familiarity breeds ease of use. What breakes RP immersion for one person will not necessarily break immersion for another.

Anecdotal - yawn... yes, I said "in my experience" to make it clear I was not referring to some universal truth, some cosmic axiom, some... nevermind.

1 Reducing - nope - just discussing the aspect relevant for the point. I did not assume it was necessary to go deep dive into the whole totality of that system since that totality was not in dispute. If you insist on having every point include an encyclopedic overview - you will likely be left unfulfilled.

2 Key point is that while the language has changed most of the points you make in 2 are common to the vast majority of player defined flaws in system after system.

2a [p]reward vs pay-4-play pitch - both sides have flaws. Those who prefer [p]reward would point to it being a limited scope limited gain choice while the pay-4-play rewards everytime it shows up and so is potentially an open ended gain. If you look at the impact of GM/setting failing to manage those equally, one winds up with a single one time imbalanc, the other with an ongoing increase. Main point is no system is "flawless" in how they manage these things and each has plusses std minuses. **Personally** I prefer neither in favor of player and GM getting on same page and so on. But - my experiences with my group fall much less favorable on gimmick point driven mechanics for this.

3 - So, to you that's not out of character negotiation? Who was asking the barbarian that question then? Who was the barbarian goat answering? Which of those charscters passing chips to which? Later on, was that chip also handed in character to an enemy or maybe tossed onto the floor for them to slip on?

In a simpler, not gimmick point driven playstyle, I would just describe an NPC acting bored or frustrated- one likely known to the others- and see if the player chose that their character would opt to take that and run with it since we know his characters previously shown history. Maybe he feeds off it and the two of them egg each other on or maybe he shows restraint and helps calm the other. Either way, there can be benefits and disad thst spawn from that play and carry into the future that dont necessitate a "conjure banana perel for foe to skip on" chip or a pre-bought bonus to ranged EB to see as rewarding in play.

The more the points get into that part of the "who is this guy" play, imo, the more they get in the way.

Obviously, different table, different people, different preferences.

 

[5ekyu]

Yep. I have made that point.

It is my thought that one of the best ways to make sure a mechanic breaks your immersion is to *concentrate* on how it breaks immersion. It becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are focused on how much your immersion is going to break, of course your immersion will break! It is like an itch - the more you concentrate on how much it itches, the more you feel the itch. As opposed to the majority of times when you manage to get distracted from the itch... and it just goes away on its own.

This extends to other dislikes of mechanics. If you work yourself up on how much you don't like a mechanic *before* you try it enough to gain facility, you create a situation where your preconcieved notion overrides the actual experience.

"This extends to other dislikes of mechanics. If you work yourself up on how much you don't like a mechanic *before* you try it enough to gain facility, you create a situation where your preconcieved notion overrides the actual experience."

Yes but it's not by any means a given that it's an inexperienced dislike?
There are very few "innovative" sub-systems out there, FATE "troubles" included, that aren't basically repacked rehashes of things done before and lots of experiences apply directly to those. You can go back decades for these concepts and disagreements over them.

I tend to not assume those who disagrees or prefers systems I dont do so from uninformed prejudice- until they make that clear.

For me and my group, years of point buy [p]reward and years of P4P and way too many gimmick point game systems fuel our tastes and choices in system - not ignorance or fear of trying.

I imagine we are not alone in that.

 

[5ekyu]

I answered the question. It's orthogonal.

By definition, the DM can't metagame, because metagaming is something that players do. It's like asking, "How much XP did the DM get for killing the dragon?"

The reason that this is the case is that if you are trying to apply any kind of "metagaming" to the DM (the idea that you are "playing" with knowledge of the game itself) it's ouroboros, dude. Of course the DM is aware of the rules.

Ok.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ah, one true wayism. Everyone else must just be missing it.

I'm not saying that there's only one way to play. I'm saying that role-playing as a character is distinct from advocating for a character. Some people may not understand the difference, and I'm trying to explain it for their benefit. I'm sure that some people understand the difference and simply don't care, or they have a preference for the latter; and that's fine, as long as it stays at their table. If you bring NS game-play into an OS game environment, then the OS gamers are going to be justifiably annoyed at you.

For example, the traits exploited by FATE mechanics are part of the character -- they are definitional for that character.

The traits are real to the character, but the mechanics by which they activate are highly meta-game. There are other ways to encourage the playing of flawed characters.

Real persons often have traits that cause them woe, and that mechanic is used to pull this real person roleplaying out. You skip this part of real person roleplaying by preferring perfect persons with no flaws except those brought by the player. All of the flaws in your real person roleplay are the player's flaws passed through the pawn of the character. Surely, you can see this?

If a player has a flaw, then it can be difficult for them to not pass the flaw onto their character, unless they put a lot of work into it. That's true, even if the character is supposed to have a completely different set of flaws. Giving the character a negative trait does not make it easier to work around player shortcomings, any more than giving the character a positive trait would (by giving the player something to focus on).

It's not more realistic for a character to have glaring flaws, that would work against them in their daily life; many people only have minor flaws, that never create serious complications for anyone. It's just that some players and some designers think flawed characters make for a more compelling narrative, or are more-relatable (TV Tropes: ThisLoserIsYou). Realistically, given the choice between a competent individual with no serious flaws, and an equally-competent individual with weird quirks and shortcomings, the former should be more successful than the latter; and it's incredibly unrealistic for any ruleset to suggest otherwise.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

From wikipedia:
"Metagaming is a term used in role-playing games, which describes a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances."

Would you say that the GM is not a player? One of the traditional roles of a GM, in most games, is to role-play all of the NPCs. If the GM allows an NPC to act on information they don't have, then it's the same category of logical error as when a player does it.

I would also take issue with any definition that suggests you can only meta-game to your own advantage. People can meta-game for all sorts of reasons, and trying to gain an advantage is only the most obvious. I think some people only use the term to describe the sort of out-of-character behavior that they personally don't like, which is probably where the confusion arises.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You put Fates system up vs a real person playstyle and went to a flawless character as the real person, putting flawless as the other side of that coin.

My point was that there are many ways put forth over time in many games that enable system support of flaws without player metagaming in play - flaws occurring as situation demands not by "bargain", etc.

Additionally point made that even without system side support, many flawed characters are played.

So, the point made that the alternative is flawless characters is unfounded.

"Real persons often have traits that cause them woe, and that mechanic is used to pull this real person roleplaying out. You skip this part of real person roleplaying by preferring perfect persons with no flaws except those brought by the player. All of the flaws in your real person roleplay are the player's flaws passed through the pawn of the character."

Oh, sorry, didn't know you were telling me my argument. All good, carry on, I'm sure you have the right of what I'm saying.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not saying that there's only one way to play. I'm saying that role-playing as a character is distinct from advocating for a character. Some people may not understand the difference, and I'm trying to explain it for their benefit. I'm sure that some people understand the difference and simply don't care, or they have a preference for the latter; and that's fine, as long as it stays at their table. If you bring NS game-play into an OS game environment, then the OS gamers are going to be justifiably annoyed at you.

I think you may misunderstand what being an advocate for your character means. Roleplaying is part of it, as is making mechanical choices that fit the character, and engaging nechanics in ways tgat best serve the character. When you build your character, you're an advocate for it with relation to the mechanics of the system.

You seem to he thinking advocating for means something different from roleplaying (which is another fraught term, but it also encompasses your intended narrow ddefinition).

The traits are real to the character, but the mechanics by which they activate are highly meta-game. There are other ways to encourage the playing of flawed characters.

Sure, but we're not in a discussion of all the ways, but one where I'm saying FATE has a way.

If a player has a flaw, then it can be difficult for them to not pass the flaw onto their character, unless they put a lot of work into it. That's true, even if the character is supposed to have a completely different set of flaws. Giving the character a negative trait does not make it easier to work around player shortcomings, any more than giving the character a positive trait would (by giving the player something to focus on).

Okay.

It's not more realistic for a character to have glaring flaws, that would work against them in their daily life; many people only have minor flaws, that never create serious complications for anyone.

You've added glaring to make this point. No one is discussing requiring glaring flaws

.
It's just that some players and some designers think flawed characters make for a more compelling narrative, or are more-relatable (TV Tropes: ThisLoserIsYou). Realistically, given the choice between a competent individual with no serious flaws, and an equally-competent individual with weird quirks and shortcomings, the former should be more successful than the latter; and it's incredibly unrealistic for any ruleset to suggest otherwise.

Why? They are both comptent, as you say, and quirky highly comoeyent people tend to be some of the more successful in real life: Gates, Einstein, Zuckerberg....

 

[5ekyu]

Oh, sorry, didn't know you were telling me my argument. All good, carry on, I'm sure you have the right of what I'm saying.

I cannot comment on whatever argument you imagine in your head only the statements made here - which i quoted. Its entirely possible you meant something else.