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

Jay Verkuilen · Jan 5, 2019

Dannyalcatraz said:
And the thing is, it was entirely an Old School style of play. The DM had no real interest in storytelling, but the game was memorable anyway.

Old Skool "killer dungeon" type D&D could be hella fun. I started playing in the early '80s when the transition started. Modules before Dragonlance were much less story based but Dragonlance (and maybe a few other things, but definitely it) really pushed much more towards "RPGs as story" where module writer was author in proxy for the DM. There are good and bad aspects to both. I tend to prefer the more "module as setting" area approach taken by, say, The Secret of Bone Hill, which lets me figure out my own story in an area, but they both work nicely in a lot of ways.

I'm currently running The Desert of Desolation, also by Tracy Hickman though with lots of additions in the supermodule version that was published in the late '80s. It's a great example of an interesting overall story but rather than considering it as linear, I'm letting the PCs loose in it with various prophecies and visions to guide them. If you want a good referent of how I've designed the sequence, it's much more like the modern classic Knights of the Old Republic video game, which has things start linearly for a while, then branch off to allow the player to pursue side quests and take the challenges in various orders, and then closes back to a more linear path as the story comes to a finish.

Jay Verkuilen · Jan 5, 2019

Alzrius said:
I haven't watched the videos you linked to, but I'm curious if Mike Mearls gets further into what constitutes "the fanbase"?

Is it people who regularly play D&D a certain number of times per month?
Is it people who spend X dollars on D&D products over the course of a year?
Is it people who watch streaming games and read about D&D online for some-odd hours per week?
Is it people who self-identify as fans of D&D?

Well you can count on WotC taking the most inclusive position that makes them look as good as possible, whatever that is.

Jay Verkuilen · Jan 5, 2019

Ramaster said:
That's just saying "X politician is running our country into the ground, but I voted for him/her because it makes for funnier memes".

Fortunately the sakes are a lot lower.

Aldarc · Jan 5, 2019

VengerSatanis said:
Can't you see the glaring contradiction in your post?

BTW, I haven't read all the comments in this thread.

VS

Is this some sort of "Gotcha Game"? If [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] has somehow failed, perhaps it would be helpful to discussion if you at least let this conversation "Fail Forward" through actually introducing the discursive complication that has resulted from his "failure" rather than let it dangle?

Umbran said:
Those folks are all actors. Their tears while on camera cannot be trusted.

This is something that's been discussed elsewhere, but bears a reminder here - Critical Role is not just a bunch of folks sitting down and playing a game. It is a bunch of professional actors sitting down to make a show that is supposed to earn money. While it is a common referent, it isn't an outstanding example of how games do/should work at our tables.

Or, we can say that CR is not Old School or New School gaming. It is Media Gaming - gaming for an external audience's benefit, rather than for the player's. There's also out there now an idea of Sport Gaming - competitive play for an outside audience. Their dynamics should be different from what happens at our tables, and we ought to be careful when making comparisons. Not that they can never be made, but some consideration should be given to the different circumstances when we do.

That's the thing. Critical Role is a cultivated media experience associated with a private company. It wants the capital of your time as you sit through advertisements, listen to their podcasts, buy their merchandise, attend events, follow their tweets (and those of their associated actors), and boost their personal brand. It is the digital D&Dification of Soap Operas. It seems as authentic to the amateur D&D hobby experience as WWE is to Olympic wrestling, though I'm sure that some would challenge that on some level, as the analogy is imperfect.

Returning to the original discussion point, I'm not sure if the OP's distinction about what constitutes Old School vs. New School game design is helpful, especially given the scarce absence of defining relevant terms. I am sure that a meaningful distinction likely exists between the game styles, but it would perhaps be helpful to examine approaches beyond the scope of D&D itself.

Though I would also pause to consider whether the change in approaches within D&D itself also stems from D&D's own success as the market leader? It succeeds because it is the easy mode and low access point? Though many tabletop gamers would likely loathe the comparison, especially given the accusations lobbed against 4e, but perhaps New School D&D is the way that it is because it follows a similar trend as World of Warcraft (and many other Blizzard games): it has created a "n00b friendly" version of the game. The new approach to D&D design and play stems, whether conscientiously or not, from a desire for its market accessibility. WoW, for example, was more forgiving than its predecessors when it came to death mechanics. WoW developed into a more linear with quests and themepark-oriented style of play in development because they sought to assist and cultivate the new player experience.

Jay Verkuilen · Jan 5, 2019

Henry said:
I like Lew's articles specifically because they generate lively debate, not of the ever-present "Sharpshooter Feat is overpowered / Class X is underpowered" variety.

Exactly!

Nonetheless, he's got a point in that newer RPGs are designed to minimize TPKs as much as possible; The odds of a TPK are (totally imaginary numbers here) like a 1 in 20 versus AD&D's 1 in 5. The odds of outright "save or die" is almost nil for any one character in D&D5 - only very rare amounts of damage in one shot. There is no save or die for any spell, no save or die for any poison, no dying immediately at 0 hit points. For letting characters continue play despite setbacks, this is awesome; but for someone whose first experiences were under a system with those as distinct possibilities, it doesn't evoke the same environment; kind of like Lord of the Rings versus Game of Thrones. (If I were playing an actual Game of Thrones-style D&D game, I'd probably use something like AD&D, too.)

I don't think it's very hard to make 5E be much more Game of Thrones: Making most magic not within the reach of the PCs, eliminating most sources of fast healing that generate actual (as opposed to temporary) hit points, and having most of the NPCs in the world be fairly low level are huge steps in that direction. One of the biggest changes is the elimination of control magic and area effect death, which really pushes things in a grittier direction, even if the PCs are higher level.

Umbran · Jan 5, 2019

Lanefan said:
Damn right we wouldn't! If I ever get to the point of having to say "Joe, can I please have permission to kill off your character?" then I'm doing it wrong on a host of levels right from square one - and Joe's probably in the wrong game, too.

I expect this is just careless phrasing on your part, but no, having a game where you need the player's permission to kill the character is not "doing it wrong" in any absolute sense. It is just a different type of game.

Yet as you yourself note, there's much more to danger than simple death. Level loss is gone. Magic item destruction is gone, or close enough. Limb loss is either gone or close to gone. Most save-or-dies are gone, along with many save-or-hosed; and those save-or-hosed that remain have been greatly mitigated in duration and-or severity.

Okay, so, there's something interesting... you generally describe loss in terms of mechanical effectiveness. The only ting to lose... is how awesome you are in the game action resolution systems.

There's just no denying that dangers in most NS games are less than in OS games.

Ah, the absolutes come out. That's not a good sign for the discussion.

FATE, a decidedly New School kind of game, has mechanics that can easily deal with any kind of long-term mechanical loss to the character - including limbs. Heck, long-term psychical impacts to the character is an intrinsic part of the FATE core damage system. Don't want to die? Take an Aspect instead, with a clearly stated negative mechanical impact.

1E D&D? Did not have unambiguous rules for what to do when you lose a limb or an eye.

In OS, a failure usually means 'no, you can't do it', whatever it was you were trying to do. You don't climb the wall. You don't find the secret door. You don't talk your way past the guards. You don't find the princess before her kidnappers kill her off. (as a side note, this is what 'failure' means - the opposite of success)

In NS, a failure quite often in fact means success (and is thus the wrong term to use) but with a complication. You climb the wall but there's a guard at the top waiting for you. You find the secret door because a monster comes out of it. You talk your way past the guards but one is suspicious and runs to inform her boss. You find the princess but she's been horribly disfigured. (note: none of these are actual failures!)

There's a bit of (probably unintentional) eliding happening here

When we talk about success and failure, we have to be clear: Succeed or fail at what? We have to be consistent if we want to understand. Are we talkign about succeedign on an action, or in achieving a goal - these aren't the same thing, but you're swapping between them above.

Let us say you are trying to climb a rope.

An Old School game is largely geared to simulation, by way of resolution of fairly atomic individual actions. Either you climb it, or you don't.

In a new school game, you try to climb the rope. And now we ask why were you trying to climb the rope, as we are considering what happens if you fail, and also what interesting things might happen around you climbing the rope. The shades of success and failure are not only fail-forward, but also generating content in a way we know is relevant to current action.

At least philosophically, if not outright mechanically, the context in which the action is attempted matters in a New School game, where it generally doesn't in an Old School game. This is perhaps connected with how you most naturally denoted losses. An Old School game loss is more often a loss *in terms of the simulation* because that's what the game deals in. A New School game will more often address loss more in terms of goals, because the game style includes the goals/context mattering to play overall.

hawkeyefan · Jan 5, 2019

Aldarc said:
Returning to the original discussion point, I'm not sure if the OP's distinction about what constitutes Old School vs. New School game design is helpful, especially given the scarce absence of defining relevant terms. I am sure that a meaningful distinction likely exists between the game styles, but it would perhaps be helpful to examine approaches beyond the scope of D&D itself.

Though I would also pause to consider whether the change in approaches within D&D itself also stems from D&D's own success as the market leader? It succeeds because it is the easy mode and low access point? Though many tabletop gamers would likely loathe the comparison, especially given the accusations lobbed against 4e, but perhaps New School D&D is the way that it is because it follows a similar trend as World of Warcraft (and many other Blizzard games): it has created a "n00b friendly" version of the game. The new approach to D&D design and play stems, whether conscientiously or not, from a desire for its market accessibility. WoW, for example, was more forgiving than its predecessors when it came to death mechanics. WoW developed into a more linear with quests and themepark-oriented style of play in development because they sought to assist and cultivate the new player experience.

I think it would really help if Lew included specific examples in his article. It’s all very vague, even the terms Old School and New School as he’s chosen to use them. He seems to be lamenting about the change in play style of D&D, but instead of focusing on that more specific topic, has summarized the argument in a way that doesn’t really hold water.

Which New School games are being discussed? What mechanics do they use and what criticisms are there?

So far in this discussion, anyone who’s provided a specific example has put forth a strong argument against his point. I’ll be interested to see if the next two proposed installments get any more specific.

Jay Verkuilen · Jan 5, 2019

Aldarc said:
That's the thing. Critical Role is a cultivated media experience associated with a private company. It wants the capital of your time as you sit through advertisements, listen to their podcasts, buy their merchandise, attend events, follow their tweets (and those of their associated actors), and boost their personal brand. It is the digital D&Dification of Soap Operas. It seems as authentic to the amateur D&D hobby experience as WWE is to Olympic wrestling, though I'm sure that some would challenge that on some level, as the analogy is imperfect.

My analogy was to pornography or cinematic sex scenes, anyway, which aren't at all like the real thing. Or, if you don't want to go there, courtroom dramas versus real courtrooms.

Returning to the original discussion point, I'm not sure if the OP's distinction about what constitutes Old School vs. New School game design is helpful, especially given the scarce absence of defining relevant terms. I am sure that a meaningful distinction likely exists between the game styles, but it would perhaps be helpful to examine approaches beyond the scope of D&D itself.

Though I would also pause to consider whether the change in approaches within D&D itself also stems from D&D's own success as the market leader? It succeeds because it is the easy mode and low access point? Though many tabletop gamers would likely loathe the comparison, especially given the accusations lobbed against 4e,

People who freak out at video game comparisons need to chill. They're valid comparison points.

It's really quite clear that WotC was looking at many different games that were selling well when they designed 4E. At the time their main parallels were miniatures games like the HeroClix family (WotC kept trying to break into that), card games most notably Magic (a WotC product!), and MMOs (WotC had had some very successful licensed properties). This is no different than what Gygax and crew were doing back in the late '60s and early '70s when they came up with D&D---they looked at the games they were playing or other people were playing along with fiction that was inspiring to them and their potential market and tried to make use of it.

Not looking at other sources if you're a designer is utterly daft. Not understanding that is more about people trying to identify and protect their particular tribe than understanding what's happening.

but perhaps New School D&D is the way that it is because it follows a similar trend as World of Warcraft (and many other Blizzard games): it has created a "n00b friendly" version of the game.

If you want to expand your market, this is 100% what you have to do.

The new approach to D&D design and play stems, whether conscientiously or not, from a desire for its market accessibility. WoW, for example, was more forgiving than its predecessors when it came to death mechanics. WoW developed into a more linear with quests and themepark-oriented style of play in development because they sought to assist and cultivate the new player experience.

D&D has been trying to get to a larger market for decades. OD&D's boxed sets were exactly this. They were trying to make it in the toy store market, which understood that "games come in boxes" but didn't at all understand "games were hardback books" and had entirely different distribution networks.

Aldarc · Jan 5, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
I think it would really help if Lew included specific examples in his article. It’s all very vague, even the terms Old School and New School as he’s chosen to use them. He seems to be lamenting about the change in play style of D&D, but instead of focusing on that more specific topic, has summarized the argument in a way that doesn’t really hold water.

Which New School games are being discussed? What mechanics do they use and what criticisms are there?

So far in this discussion, anyone who’s provided a specific example has put forth a strong argument against his point. I’ll be interested to see if the next two proposed installments get any more specific.

Agreed. He could have made his point better by simply pointing out true trends within D&D's editions. There is a move towards greater player-empowerment, even if 5e was a move back towards GM-empowerment. There is less lethality and are more ways to prevent a player death or TPK. Magic is more accessible. There is hit points inflation. There is an increased facade that D&D is not rooted in wargaming. There is less competitive D&D play. The game has expanded its core playstyle assumptions requiring that the game be cognizant of and support the reality that people play the same game differently [insert comparison to Milton Bradley's discovery about how Monopoly was played]. The dungeon crawl is a mode of play but not the mode of play. There are clearly trends of play and design within D&D. And perhaps before extrapolating about trends within the TTRPG hobby on the whole, it would have helped if they initially examined within the culture of D&D. D&D does not exist in a vacuum, being subjected to outside gaming trends, but it does appear his principle concern as the elephant in the room.

Arilyn · Jan 5, 2019

My first experience with D&D was way back in the early 80s. I was excited about the idea of creating a fantasy character, who would go on adventures like in the novels I was consuming at a rapid pace. What I got instead, was crawling slowly and carefully through a dungeon, meticulously mapping every inch, with long, out of character tactical sessions about getting past ridiculously complicated mechanical traps. Oh, and my elf couldn't be a ranger. Turned me right off the hobby, and I wasn't alone in feeling this way. The desire for more story in rpgs and less random death is a debate which started almost as soon as ODD was released. Gygax didn't initially appreciate role playing in his game, and wanted no differentiation between character and player. This idea did not survive long, once the public got hold of the game, although, remnants of this idea still exist amongst the old schoolers.

The desire for story in rpgs is, and has always been, strong. GM driven stories, which are influenced by player actions, so they don't become railroads, seem to attract the most players, and it's not a new thing caused by critical role, or spoiled players, who don't want their characters to fail or die. The newer mechanics that are found in Fate, Gumshoe, and even in 5e are there to support more narrative driven games, to help establish dramatic beats. They exist to help support the desire for NS, which isn't all that new, work better.

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

Lewis Pulsipher

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers

Aldarc

Legend

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers

Umbran

Mod Squad

hawkeyefan

Legend

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers

Aldarc

Legend

Arilyn

Hero

Similar Threads

Related Articles