D&D General What Constitutes "Old School" D&D

[John R Davis]

For me OS was when the answer was mostly in your head, not on your character sheet.

As soon as skill systems occurred and you could roll your way to success, that's when it stopped being OS.

I'm not saying have skills is a bad thing, loads great games do of course, it's just when for me things changed for DND.

 

[overgeeked]

For me OS was when the answer was mostly in your head, not on your character sheet.

As soon as skill systems occurred and you could roll your way to success, that's when it stopped being OS.

I'm not saying have skills is a bad thing, loads great games do of course, it's just when for me things changed for DND.

By that reckoning old school lasted for less than a year. Between the original box set publication in 1974 and the introduction of the thief with the publication of the first supplement in 1975.

 

[Reynard]

By that reckoning old school lasted for less than a year. Between the original box set publication in 1974 and the introduction of the thief with the publication of the first supplement in 1975.

There are definitely folks who would agree with that assessment.

 

[overgeeked]

There are definitely folks who would agree with that assessment.

Absolutely. I've run into a few.

 

[Mercurius]

Having skimmed through the thread, I think it is clear that there is no singular, correct answer - because of the nature of the question and the term involved, which has no clear or specific definition.

I think there are multiple good answers - including many in this thread. I think there are three basic answers, each of which has variations:

• D&D before Dragonlance (OD&D, B/X, early AD&D)
• TSR D&D (the above plus 2E, or anything pre-3E)
• A style or attitude of play (thus including OSR)

Etc. None of the above are "wrong" - all just emphasize different elements of the term "old school" and yield different, but related, results.

I want to say something about that third one, though - or at least extrapolate from it. I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that the term "old school" is used in a lot of different contexts that have nothing to do with D&D. When people say someone is "old school," it generally means they do things in a way that is no longer popular or widely done. Actually, Urban Dictionary has a decent definition that comes up:

"Anything that is from an earlier era and looked upon with high regard or respect. Can be used to refer to music, clothing, language, or anything really."

I didn't consider the regard/respect part, but I think it generally applies. When we say someone or something is "old school," it generally has positive connotations, like they do something that is no longer done, but has its own charms that may have been lost. For instance, vinyl records or fountain pens or mechanical watches. People generally don't use the term "old school" in the mocking manner that, say, my 13-year old daughter has when she calls me a Boomer (even though I've tried to clarify the difference between a Boomer and Gen Xer!).

That said, I think there's an important distinction to be made between something that is from a specific era, and something that is a re-envisioning of it. Compare an actual 80s movie to Stranger Things. Or a 1970s Funkadelic album vs a modern group of Brooklyn hipsters (or, say, Vulfpeck). This isn't a value judgment either way, but there are different qualities involved. In fact, one could argue that the best re-envisionings are equal or even superior to the originals.

That said, sometimes older things are actually measurably superior, or at least different in a way that is no longer present today, and thus offering qualities that have been "lost." Take fountain pens, for instance. Due to changes in metallurgy and manufacturing over the decades, certain vintage nibs have qualities that are no longer present in modern pens - and perhaps not even possible to re-create. This is why certain fountain pen users are always on the hunt for certain vintage pens, such as the so-called "wet noodle" nibs that modern pen makers haven't quite been able to re-create.

Back to D&D and the style/attitude element, I think another angle on "old school" that hasn't been mentioned is the degree to which the game and fantasy experience relates to reality. An old school approach to D&D sees the D&D world as its own thing - it isn't a reflection of the real world or a context to play out socio-cultural-political dynamics. The game is not analyzed for how it relates to various real world issues - everything within it is what it is, regardless of what connections people decide to make. Or to put it another way, the connections aren't intrinsic aspects of the thing itself. Bugbears are just bugbears - how we choose to interpret or analyze them is separate from the actual bugbear itself - that is, within the context of D&D Land.

Now this isn't quite the same as other definitions of old school, but I think has overlap and is part of the matrix of perspectives that can be applied (and thus either a subset of the third category--style/attitude--or even a fourth category from the three above: the way the D&D world is understood in relationship to the real world).

 

[Greg Benage]

The game is not analyzed for how it relates to various real world issues

I agree that the social and cultural biases and assumptions weren't analyzed by the designers or players at the time. I disagree that this means they weren't present. I say this as someone who also thinks maybe we analyze them a little too much, these days. But yes, the uncritical and often unconscious biases are definitely "old school."

 

[Mercurius]

I agree that the social and cultural biases and assumptions weren't analyzed by the designers or players at the time. I disagree that this means they weren't present. I say this as someone who also thinks maybe we analyze them a little too much, these days. But yes, the uncritical and often unconscious biases are definitely "old school."

Of course such biases did exist, but I think you go too far with your implication: that being old school in this regard means one is biased. It implies that if you don't choose to analyze certain things a certain way, or disagree in any way with such analyses, you've inherently biased and are part of the problem.

Meaning, an old school attitude to such things doesn't mean one way or the other whether or not such biases are/were present (or to what degree). Maybe they were, maybe they weren't - it depends upon the individual. But it does generally mean, at least in the way I was framing it, that such analyses are generally not part of the game.

 

[Greg Benage]

Of course such biases did exist, but I think you go too far with your implication: that being old school in this regard means one is biased.

I think everyone is biased -- and you seem to agree ("of course"!). I'm not suggesting that "old school" designers and players failed to subject their games to any particular brand of analysis; I'm suggesting we typically didn't examine our biases at all. Our biases were just "normal."

Since you've prompted me, though, I'd go further and suggest that most defenses of old school games that I've seen -- and certainly those I've made -- explicitly call out this fact. You know, "those games were products of their time." I think that's true, and I generally don't fault anyone for it, but then you can't in the same breath argue that, actually, we were analyzing or examining our biases.

 

[Charlaquin]

For me, there will always be The Old Ones I Didn't Play, My First One, The Good One, and The One My Friends Make Me Play Because It Has Online Support.

My experience of the editions has been similar, though there are things about 5e I like more than 4e, and vice versa.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me OS was when the answer was mostly in your head, not on your character sheet.

As soon as skill systems occurred and you could roll your way to success, that's when it stopped being OS.

I'm not saying have skills is a bad thing, loads great games do of course, it's just when for me things changed for DND.

What are your thoughts on thief abilities? I know there are some, Mornard for example who played all the back with Gary, who have stuck to pre-Greyhawk (or gone back to it) D&D as being purists in the "there must only be player depiction of action at all levels and in all things" school. Kind of an extreme definition of old school there to me, though I get their point.