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!

 

[Umbran]

Yes but it's not by any means a given that it's an inexperienced dislike?

I don't like coffee. I have *never* liked coffee. To me, it tastes of ashes and sadness. I don't drink the stuff, and I avoid dishes that include it. A few years ago, I went to Italy, and my friends said, "Well, *Italian* coffee is different. It is the best. So, you should try it." I did. Yuck - more ashes and sadness. I sweetened it until I could at least finish my cup - it tasted of the tears of Willy Wonka leeched through the burned out husk of his candy factory.

While in Rome, my wife and I took a private cooking lesson - mostly making pasta of various forms. Dessert of the meal was? Tiramisu. With coffee. Yuck. Except, while the coffee was the same, this tiramisu *was* different, and I enjoyed it, even though there was coffee involved.

Context matters. And sometimes it pays off to give an honest and open-minded try to things you don't think you are going to like.

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.

Then, of course, you can choose to not play them. Your table, your game. Do what gives you joy.

But, on the flip side, if you haven't actually played a significant amount of a game, you probably don't have an informed opinion about that game's implementations. You should then probably not speak at length about the mechanic or its use in the game, as you would be speaking from ignorance... and that's not a good place to speak from.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

When you build your character, you're an advocate for it with relation to the mechanics of the system.

Building a character is not playing the game. The game is everything that happens, after you meet at the tavern. Character creation is player homework that takes place long before the game ever starts.

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

And I'm saying, the way FATE does it is flatly unacceptable by the tenets of OS game design. As soon as you ask the player to make a meta-game decision, you've alienated the entire player-base of gamers who aren't willing to jump off that cliff. Alternatives must be explored, if we're ever going to find common ground.

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

FATE awards no compensation for a flaw, unless it creates a complication. If you're going to engage with the resource economy of the game, then your character needs to have flaws that actually come up and impede them.

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

If they're both equally skilled at a technical level, then the one without shortcomings to hold them back should have the advantage. And the rules of FATE tell us that the opposite of true - that until you suffer for your shortcomings, your positive traits will never actually help you. (You do still have your skills to fall back on, of course. I have nothing but good things to say about the skill system in that game.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As we have discussed before, you can define your terms however you want, but to the extent you are using them in an idiosyncratic way that is not widely shared, that usage will hinder, not advance, any conversation.

Then I'll have to hope that my point is strong enough to make up for that minor confusion.

For future reference, though, do you know if there's a more widely understood term which refers to the use of out-of-character information while role-playing, without regard for who is doing it? Because that would be a very useful term. A narrower term, which applies only to the players in the context of gaining an unfair advantage, is not very useful.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't like coffee. I have *never* liked coffee. To me, it tastes of ashes and sadness. I don't drink the stuff, and I avoid dishes that include it. A few years ago, I went to Italy, and my friends said, "Well, *Italian* coffee is different. It is the best. So, you should try it." I did. Yuck - more ashes and sadness. I sweetened it until I could at least finish my cup - it tasted of the tears of Willy Wonka leeched through the burned out husk of his candy factory.

While in Rome, my wife and I took a private cooking lesson - mostly making pasta of various forms. Dessert of the meal was? Tiramisu. With coffee. Yuck. Except, while the coffee was the same, this tiramisu *was* different, and I enjoyed it, even though there was coffee involved.

Context matters. And sometimes it pays off to give an honest and open-minded try to things you don't think you are going to like.



Then, of course, you can choose to not play them. Your table, your game. Do what gives you joy.

But, on the flip side, if you haven't actually played a significant amount of a game, you probably don't have an informed opinion about that game's implementations. You should then probably not speak at length about the mechanic or its use in the game, as you would be speaking from ignorance... and that's not a good place to speak from.

Sorry but... Nah.

I dont need to drop a new fridgevon my hand every couple of years to know that i wont like it any more than i did in 1981.

I have myself played and GMed a fairly wide spectrum of games and have quite a bit of experience with mechanics. I dont buy that makes me ignorant of a rehashed set of mechanics just bevause its a new cover with different names and fluffier more indie (what used to go indie) jargon.

But this means of dismissing or belittling alternative views as ignorant if they havent pit in the time you have has bern around forever.

By all means, its not unusual or even odd to think the current niche fad is something new and revolutionary that those "others" dont get... Thats an old scene, man.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Building a character is not playing the game. The game is everything that happens, after you meet at the tavern. Character creation is player homework that takes place long before the game ever starts.

Not for all games. You're specifically talking about D&D here, right? Or are you including other games in this assumption?

Some games require and/or expect the players to make all their characters in conjunction during the first section. I don't see the hard distinction between character creation and playing the game. It's all part of the game.

If they're both equally skilled at a technical level, then the one without shortcomings to hold them back should have the advantage. And the rules of FATE tell us that the opposite of true - that until you suffer for your shortcomings, your positive traits will never actually help you. (You do still have your skills to fall back on, of course. I have nothing but good things to say about the skill system in that game.)

Very often people who have had to struggle with issues become stronger as a result. So, assuming equal competence for the task required, the person who has struggled with flaws may actually be a stronger candidate.

Or they may be a total mess. There's no way to say. Considering that this is all fiction, we can make it work however we want and then justify it with a fictional reason.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not for all games. You're specifically talking about D&D here, right? Or are you including other games in this assumption?

Some games require and/or expect the players to make all their characters in conjunction during the first section. I don't see the hard distinction between character creation and playing the game. It's all part of the game.

I feel like this is a topic for another thread, because it's not something that necessarily varies between OS and NS games. Sometimes you do it in the first session, or sometimes at home; sometimes you conspire with others to build characters that work together, or know each other, and sometimes the characters literally don't meet each other until they happen to be in a tavern together.

Personally, I draw a strong distinction between the part of the game where you're role-playing (making decisions as your character), and everything that comes before that. When you are choosing to be an elf, you aren't yet at the part of the process where you're making decisions from the character perspective. It's all part of the same collective activity (which you call 'the game'), but I prefer to think of them as two separate games, since they follow such wildly different rules.

 

[Shasarak]

Building a character is not playing the game. The game is everything that happens, after you meet at the tavern. Character creation is player homework that takes place long before the game ever starts.

I would disagree with that. Character creation takes up far too much rule space to not be considered part of playing the game.

I could see that someone may not enjoy it and consider it to be homework though. Certainly there are parts of the game that drag intermittently for me as well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel like this is a topic for another thread, because it's not something that necessarily varies between OS and NS games. Sometimes you do it in the first session, or sometimes at home; sometimes you conspire with others to build characters that work together, or know each other, and sometimes the characters literally don't meet each other until they happen to be in a tavern together.

I think the game in question dictates how this works. And while we can say that OS deals with it one way, and NS deals with it another way (or other ways, depending on the specific game in question), this change in the game has no impact on the ability for PCs to face failure or loss, which was the premise of the OP.

However, this tangent of the conversation was about advocacy and how it is being viewed here. Advocating for your character is a part of character creation, and it is a part of play. I mean advocate in the strongest sense possible. I don't think that my definition is functionally any different than your "being the character" definition. Mine just acknowledges that "I am John, not Ragnar, and John will do everything he can for Ragnar to succeed at what he wants." Yours is "I am Ragnar and I will do everything I can to succeed."

There is a difference, but it's really not significant. My level of immersion is, I don't think, any less then yours because I don't think that you're delusional and have actually forgotten that you're someone playing a game rather than a being in the game.

So I don't think that these two definitions are really at odds. Nor do I think that many of the mechanics in modern games will somehow interfere with such immersion. Or, if so, it is entirely subjective and will vary by person, which would also be true of OS methods of character creation and play.

Personally, I draw a strong distinction between the part of the game where you're role-playing (making decisions as your character), and everything that comes before that. When you are choosing to be an elf, you aren't yet at the part of the process where you're making decisions from the character perspective. It's all part of the same collective activity (which you call 'the game'), but I prefer to think of them as two separate games, since they follow such wildly different rules.

That's fine....I think it's a matter of semantics, really. However, for some games, character creation is a group activity that happens in the first session. For such games, it certainly seems like it would fall under "playing the game".

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would disagree with that. Character creation takes up far too much rule space to not be considered part of playing the game.

That really depends on the game.

I could see that someone may not enjoy it and consider it to be homework though. Certainly there are parts of the game that drag intermittently for me as well.

I mean, yeah. But also, even if you're having a lot of fun with it, it's still a distinctly different sort of game. However you go through the progress of generating a character, whether it's point-buy or random-rolls or just using a pre-gen, none of that is relevant to what you do with the character after you have it. And what you do with the character, once you have it, is the game I'm talking about.

 

[Lanefan]

But then, in many games, folkdms just played characters with flaws as part of rolrme playing a character - no rules needed to provide any mechanics and benefits or pay-offs for "my guy hates orcs so i attack, no negotiating".

In my experience, i saw more "flawed" and many ways more real peopke characters in play in game systems where there was little or no system defined flaw structures as the system did not get in the wsy of that part of the "who is this person?" definition and play by framing and trapping it in pre-formed structures of frequency, severity or "chip economy" - especially "chip-economy" that is significant in gameplay.

This is a point worth noting.

There's a rather significant difference between a) allowing flaws to arise during and as a result of the run of play or b) baking those flaws in as part of the character's mechanics.

If a flaw is baked in then a player is reasonably expected to play to it - which is fine - but then is less likely to look any further or allow any other flaws to arise; because the game system has planted the seed of flaws being rewarded with benefits and thus to have a flaw without a benefit is mechanically counter-productive. Further, the GM is somewhat expected to somehow bring this flaw into play at some point in order to make it relevant.

But if a flaw simply arises out of the run of play with no mechanical advantage expected or given in return it allows the player the freedom to have the flaw reflect things the character has done or experienced in play (as opposed to off-camera backstory), and to play the flaw however she likes. It also places no burden on the GM unless she specifically wants it to.

Whether one wants flawed chars or not is a wholly different thing from whether one wants those represented by meta-game player side bargains - esp ones with significant system play involved.

In D&D (all editions) I'd agree. But if the game system is specifically geared around a flaw-for-benefit mechanic then so be it. I'll just find a different game to play in.