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!

 

[Hussar]

Yes and yes, in fact. Page 85 of the 1e DMG gives me all I need.

7th level is treated as 7+1 HD, so base is 375 + 10 per hit point + 175 (SA high intelligence affecting combat) [+175 (SA AC 0 or lower) if applicable] + 275 (XA spell use).

A 20 h.p. MU with AC 4 thus gives 375+200+175+275 = 1025 xp.

Not as cut and dried as that as I recall. Although, to be fair, I could be confusing the 2e charts which were extremely detailed. But, something tells me, you already know this.

Of course, this also nicely illuminates the nature of the issue. That Magic User, at 7th level, has accumulated what, 60k xp? Yet, killing him only nets 1025 xp? Really? Where'd the other 59 (ish) thousand xp go?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Interesting article. I think it is a good topic for discussion. I would describe my style as pretty old school inspired (I just find the OSR approach to adventure and setting works well for my needs as a GM--but not afraid to inject other elements). I'd say I take a blended approach. I am fine having more dramatic elements in play, but I also like the reliability of the old school tools. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive.

If I had a quibble, it would be that I don't think the hobby is divided neatly into old school and new school. I think you have a mainstream of the hobby, and a bunch of alternative approaches (of which OSR is one). But I don't see something like 5E, for example, as 'new school'. I see it as a compromise meant to appeal to as many styles as possible, including old school GMs (and I know many old school GMs who happily use the system). But you really can categorize things any number of ways so I am probably just being picky in my quibble.

Just my thoughts on what Old School and OSR are all about. I think most people who use the term Old School these days, are talking about the OSR rather than the original intent of the white box or something. My impression of people who are old school, rather than OSR, is they are not particularly concerned with some of the distinctions being made in these debates, since so much of that predates a lot of what we are talking about (I've met plenty of old school GMs who use the word 'story' for example, but they mean it in an entirely different way than most online discussion handles the term).

In terms of OSR play and style, I think failure being on the table is an important feature. Character death is also a possibility. Not knowing the destination or desired outcome in advance is another. Emulation a setting or environment is important (whether that is a campaign world or a dungeon). I saw some people mention simulation in this regard, I don't think many OSR GMs are trying to simulate reality. They're not interested in simulating real world physics, as much as they are interested in creating and sustaining a campaign that feels like a real living world (even if that world includes genre elements). That doesn't mean there are not concessions to entertainment and the fact that it is a game. It just means the world tends to be logically consistent, it has a geography that feels real and it is inhabited by people who are intended to behave with their own motivations and goals. But it isn't limited to these things. OSR is also about using adventure models/structures and tools that work in play. It is about what works at the table. The dungeon works, so it is a big feature of OSR. Encounter tables work, so they are a big feature. If you look at a lot of OSR blogs and online discussions, utility is a big part of it. I think there are other aspects though. The aesthetics of OSR are a bit different than mainstream play.

These discussions are not zero sum games though where its 'one style to rule them all'. If the OSR approach doesn't appeal to you, there is little point in me trying to convince you to take an interest in it. If you find something useful about it, then by all means take what you can and apply it to your table. And this is just my impression of the style. Others may have different views.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Of course, this also nicely illuminates the nature of the issue. That Magic User, at 7th level, has accumulated what, 60k xp? Yet, killing him only nets 1025 xp? Really? Where'd the other 59 (ish) thousand xp go?

I may have missed an earlier point in this discussion and be missing the thrust of the argument, but do we really want characters effectively becoming the level of anything they kill or beat? Let's say a person who has one day of boxing training beats Mike Tyson on a bad day (I don't know because he or she uses clever tactics and has a ring of uppercut protection or something); it doesn't make sense that the person would be operating at the same level as Mike Tyson from that day forward. I haven't looked at those charts in a while, so possible 1025 is a bit on the low side. But I don't think it would make sense to give the total XP amount.

 

[Aldarc]

Open Question for the Floor: In the opinion of posters in this thread, which set of games respectively exemplify Old School and New School roleplaying games? (Maybe 3-7 games per approach?)

 

[darkbard]

Open Question for the Floor: In the opinion of posters in this thread, which set of games respectively exemplify Old School and New School roleplaying games? (Maybe 3-7 games per approach?)

That's part of the problem with the OP: the terms presented make it nearly impossible to fairly delineate a game along their terms, so confused are they.

 

[5ekyu]

In this context, if I say it isn't new, I mean that only very broadly. Like, "a car is not a new thing". Four tires, a steering wheel, brakes, internal combustion engine. You know - a car. But cars today are a lot different from cars a century ago, or 50 years ago. Even in a thing that is broadly the same, there is change. That internal combustion engine? Not a given any more....

For any given general mechanical element, *how* it is implemented matters. The context in the game it sits matters. How it is intended to be used matters. There's a ton of details around it that can impact how it operates in practice. So, if you don't have experience with the specific implementation, you don't really know what it is like in this incarnation.

Mind you - I did not say this to make a claim that you should try a game with such mechanics. Not at all. You're free to play what you like. Experiment only with what you want, that's all good.

I was more referring to the fact that if you haven't worked with it... you're like.. maybe the old guy on an auto mechanics forum, who used to work on cars a lot when he was young... in 1967? You're talking about braking systems... but anti-lock brakes started becoming really common in the 1980s - after your time. Brakes aren't a new thing, but there's detail in how they are applied now that you don't know a whole lot about, and you would need to actually work with them a goodly amount to get yourself up to speed on the details of their performance and maintenance.

That's not saying you *need* to get up to speed. It is just that you should recognize that you can go ahead and talk about brakes on an Edsel, but if you talk about brakes on a Tesla... you're probably going to get something important wrong....

All of which is meaningless if the mechanic keeps up to date, but a manuals on anti-lock brakes and hasn't stayed ten generations of car systems out of date.

Its lazy logic to simply pass off as uninformed any opinion that doesn't come from someone who has walked months or years etc in your specific not new shoes. RPG mechanics and play are not rocket science or mystic experiences that have to be "experienced" by lots of to be understood.

Anyway, guess what, it doesnt matter - keep the dismissive and veiled tosses of ignorance going at those whose preferences you dont agree with.

 

[jasper]

.....

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....".

Jasper puts his cap with bill forward. Wipes his hand on a greasy rag. Shoves a chaw of tobacco in his cheek.
"I say old chap. It sounds like a college boy. You are put on airs to look down us normal folk. If there is no real difference, why are you using those five dollar words. Use normal words."
Hawk. Jasper spits into hawkeyefan's dice bag. And dog ears his PHB page on background.

 

[Umbran]

Open Question for the Floor: In the opinion of posters in this thread, which set of games respectively exemplify Old School and New School roleplaying games? (Maybe 3-7 games per approach?)

I agree with darkbard, and...

The rules, in and of themselves, do not determine what style of play is at the table. Some games have more or less in terms of mechanics that support Old or New types of play, but that still leaves someone very able to play Old School with New School rules, and so forth. All too often, a person will say, "X is a New School thing," and we can look into the writings of Gygax or Arneson and find that X was in their games. How "new" is it if the Grandfathers used it?

I think we are more talking about genres of games, and that means we should use *inclusive* definitions - I have a set of tropes or conventions, and if you have enough of them, you're part of the genre, even if you also have things not in the genre. So, f'rex: Firefly was a Western. Doesn't matter that there's also spaceships. It was still recognizably a Western. It was probably *also* a Space Opera, and that's okay. You can be both.

We run into a problem when someone wants to use *exclusive* definitions, self-referential definitions, or definitions based upon their personal tastes, rather than a more objective standard. A common example: "I like Old School games! I don't like this game because X. Therefore, X is not Old School, and any game with it isn't Old School."

It gets even worse when we wrap identity as a gamer in with this. If you identify as an Old School or New School gamer, then discussion of the genres get difficult, because asking for one to rethink the categorizations is asking for people to adjust *who they are as a gamer*.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Jasper puts his cap with bill forward. Wipes his hand on a greasy rag. Shoves a chaw of tobacco in his cheek.
"I say old chap. It sounds like a college boy. You are put on airs to look down us normal folk. If there is no real difference, why are you using those five dollar words. Use normal words."
Hawk. Jasper spits into hawkeyefan's dice bag. And dog ears his PHB page on background.

Well, Jasper....if you spent a little less money on RPG products, then you could afford some five dollar words for yourself.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Do you consider advocacy to be part of your job, during character generation, when choosing to play an elf rogue rather than an elf barbarian or dwarf rogue? Because I don't, really. I don't feel any obligation to the character, that I should use my discretion during character generation to set him up for success. I might feel obligation to the other players, to make a character that can help them succeed at our shared goals, but my only obligation to the character is that I do my best to role-play them accurately (whoever that character ends up being). The net effect is probably similar, in most cases.

Yes, I think advocacy comes into character creation. Not in every decision, but overall. If I want my character to be good at a specific thing, then all my choices will be made with that in mind....class, abilities, perks, feats, etc.

There may also be other obligations at stake, like to the other players or to the GM....but there's no reason these need to be at odds in any way.

On some level, I'm always aware that I'm the player at the table rather than the wizard in the game world; but part of the role-playing process is to try and suppress those details. I shouldn't let any out-of-game information cloud my judgment, when I'm making decisions from the perspective of the character.

Sure, different players will have their immersion challenged by different mechanics, and the specifics will vary based on how the individual understands the concept of immersion. Essentially, during play, we want to avoid triggering certain thought processes; but awareness of those processes can make them harder to avoid. It's like the pink elephant experiment. (Although, there's no guarantee that the issue would have passed without remark, if someone was previously ignorant of it; and acknowledging an issue is always the first step toward fixing it.)

The way I look at it is this: there is no way to eliminate meta-knowledge. You know when your character's turn will be based on initiative, you know how close you are to dying based on HP, and so on. Many of these things are simply accepted as part of the necessity of playing the game, or they are "allowed" because they represent some kind of thing the character would know (they really don't, but many insist that they do). So for me, other meta aspects can also be reconciled in the game world by representing something that can't be replicated.

So when other players make a suggestion for what I should do, I don't view that as meta-gaming, but rather it's my character having knowing all the options available to him. It's simply his inner thoughts analyzing the situation. No matter how well the GM narrates the situation, and no matter how well immersed a player may be, there is always going to be some amount of "loss" of information from character to player. So meta-knowledge can often be a good substitute for that, I find.

None of that ruins immersion for me since I feel it actually helps me feel more connected to the game world and the possibilities open to the character.

Not to keep dragging the topic back to FATE, but some players may never notice an issue with Fate points; and some players may feel like something is weird, but be unable to pinpoint why it feels off. A player who has read this thread, meanwhile, will be forced to consider how they feel about that mechanic. If they never noticed an issue in the first place, then they probably won't decide that it's suddenly a deal-breaker for them, but they might be slightly annoyed once it's brought to their attention. If they thought something was off, then confronting the issue directly will either allow them to accept it for what it is, or convince them to play some other game entirely.

As someone who is unfamiliar with FATE, I'd have to say that I would decide how I felt about that mechanic if and when I read the rules myself, and even then would likely want to see the mechanic in play before I truly decided how I felt. However, going off of the posts in this thread on the topic, I feel that those that have defended the mechanic have made a stronger case for it than the detractors have had. Most who have criticized the mechanic seem to have done so from a place of bias; they don't think that the mechanic will do what it says, or they don't like those sorts of rules, and so on, rather than from a position of actual experience.