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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Its a total swamp of course. I can say that in the '70s I was QUITE young and obviously wasn't doing deep analysis of the biases, or anything else, that went into something like D&D. I mean, early D&D was, as an aritfact on its own, rather mild IMHO. I mean, the deeper implications of things like 'orcs' and such, definitely germane, but there was VERY VERY LITTLE depiction of cultures and such AT ALL, it was a much more toolboxy "here are processes and mechanics you could use" kind of thing than anything else. The early art of course is a bit of an 'area' too.

Still, the point is, people were definitely NOT analyzing any of this in the early days. I would be astounded to hear someone say that EGG ever considered anything like that at all. Not to say he was apparently good at being super inclusive or anything like that, just that it was all rather unexamined.

Obviously this is a bit of a challenge when you go to revisit this stuff. I mean, I think you'd be wise not to drop lots of images of half-naked women all over your OSR product, and that shouldn't really be a big problem, right? Some stuff like how orcs are depicted might be a bit harder to do much about, as just the name alone can drag in associations at this point. Ah well, maybe its time we completely reimagined humanoids anyway, and I don't see how that would prevent OSR type play, or actual old school except in the sense of literally reenacting old games/adventures.

 

[bloodtide]

That’s an OSR innovation. D&D magic has never really been dangerous or costly.

Both Teleport and Polymorph were deadly before 3E. Haste aged a caster a year. Energy Drain took away one or more levels. Loss of a Familiar could kill the caster.

Letting players define the setting their characters are interacting with only seem useful and practical to me to a very limited scale.

I have only heard about the players that really engage in the game creation online. In Real Life, most players just barley make a character and have zero intrest in ding anything else except "playing in the game."

I do this not because my players demand it, but because I demand it of myself. Rule zero for me as a GM isn't, "I can do whatever I want", because while that's true it's not fundamental. Rule zero for me as a GM is, "Be the GM you would want to have if you were a player."

I've never put that into words like that: but that is exactly what I do.

 

[Helldritch]

In context it felt like a 4e joke to me, but I guess it was subtle enough you could read it as any edition. Regardless, it made me realize 4e was no longer the new kid on the block that got unfairly maligned because grognards didn’t like that it was doing something new. It’s an old edition that new players will likely look back on as an odd one out, for better or worse.

Strange, the 4ed was not rebuked by old grognards at the time but by the lovers of 3.xed. 3.xed was not reviled by old grognards but many of us simply skipped it. I remember being called a traitor simply for playing 3.xed by my peers.

These pro 3.xed were quite virulent on 4ed and when some of them learned that I was DMing it, they were outraged. I should have switched to PF, but when I was pointing that PF was simply 3.xed on steroids, Ho boy did I get it. And yet, in the end, with retrospect, these same accusatory people gave me nod and acknowledge that my analysis was quite spot on back then.

I really regret 4ed did not receive the welcome it should have had but I fully acknowledge that all classes in it were to similar to each other for the tastes of many. The famous WoW edition insult that it had received was not very far from the truth (if not spot on).

 

[Helldritch]

That’s an OSR innovation. D&D magic has never really been dangerous or costly.

Did you ever played with spell components? I sure did. Permanency required a chance to lose a point of constitution, haste would require a system shock at its end because you aged by one year (which would require a system shock roll). And that is only two examples out of my head. There are many more.

 

[Voadam]

Did you ever played with spell components? I sure did. Permanency required a chance to lose a point of constitution, haste would require a system shock at its end because you aged by one year (which would require a system shock roll). And that is only two examples out of my head. There are many more.

I strictly enforced spell components in my 80s multi-year 1e campaign that stretched into 2e and the 90s. Even if I didn't know what gum arabic was the magic user needed some to turn invisible.

In my experience it was trivial to avoid the 1e spells that had dangerous side effects like system shock rolls. I avoided them in playing my long time magic user character, but I am generally risk and cost averse and very aware of the written costs.

 

[Helldritch]

I strictly enforced spell components in my 80s multi-year 1e campaign that stretched into 2e and the 90s. Even if I didn't know what gum arabic was the magic user needed some to turn invisible.

In my experience it was trivial to avoid the 1e spells that had dangerous side effects like system shock rolls. I avoided them in playing my long time magic user character, but I am generally risk and cost averse and very aware of the written costs.

And depending on the level and campaign type you might not have had that chance. A lot of groups were avoiding spells like polymorph, haste, Stone skin, permanency and so many others with high costs/risks. Bur these spells had these costs and risks for a good reason, they were game changers. A well placed haste would turn the tide of a battle in no time, especially with a fighter with 5 attacks pe two round. It would turn him into a lawn mower very fast. Two of these and Ho boy. Add in bless, prayer and chant and hitting was not a problem. And foe some of these, you also needed costly component for your level. 1ed was a lot harsher on caster than any realizes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And depending on the level and campaign type you might not have had that chance. A lot of groups were avoiding spells like polymorph, haste, Stone skin, permanency and so many others with high costs/risks. Bur these spells had these costs and risks for a good reason, they were game changers. A well placed haste would turn the tide of a battle in no time, especially with a fighter with 5 attacks pe two round. It would turn him into a lawn mower very fast. Two of these and Ho boy. Add in bless, prayer and chant and hitting was not a problem. And foe some of these, you also needed costly component for your level. 1ed was a lot harsher on caster than any realizes.

Eh, there were ways to deal with a lot of it. Questioner of All Things was a total genius on 'constructive spell use'. I learned how to pretty much cast something that would serve in most any situation from the 1e list that would avoid the more onerous restrictions and costs. Really the key was devices, casting from devices is pretty painless, aside from the negative effects of stuff like haste (which 99% of all GMs will rule still hit the target, though haste granting devices are also hard to find...). Having a henchman or two of other spellcasting classes is also highly advisable. For example Druids have some really useful defensive and buffing magic that fills in gaps in the wizard (magic user) list. Questioner found a nice Druid he could 'borrow' an Initiate from, came in quite handy!

Scrolls are pretty darn handy too. Once you know all the tricks then casting is pretty stupid effective. Past name level there's basically no point in even having non-casters in a party.

 

[Helldritch]

Eh, there were ways to deal with a lot of it. Questioner of All Things was a total genius on 'constructive spell use'. I learned how to pretty much cast something that would serve in most any situation from the 1e list that would avoid the more onerous restrictions and costs. Really the key was devices, casting from devices is pretty painless, aside from the negative effects of stuff like haste (which 99% of all GMs will rule still hit the target, though haste granting devices are also hard to find...). Having a henchman or two of other spellcasting classes is also highly advisable. For example Druids have some really useful defensive and buffing magic that fills in gaps in the wizard (magic user) list. Questioner found a nice Druid he could 'borrow' an Initiate from, came in quite handy!

Scrolls are pretty darn handy too. Once you know all the tricks then casting is pretty stupid effective. Past name level there's basically no point in even having non-casters in a party.

Ho, a magicianmart type campaign you had. A lot of things it explains.
Scrolls, you had to pen them. Meaning you had to pay for the spell costs while creating them. If you went to buy one, the cost of actually casting the spell was in addition to the cost of the scroll. Having a henchmen doing for you was not free. If anything, you had to pay him even more to keep this hence happy and loyal.

Druid might not be available for hire, especially for dungeon delving. NPC druids would not approach a dungeon, but a cave network I could agree. Only PCs ever went into dungeons. But I tight be doable. A caster would charge a pretty steep salary. That NPC might even requires a share in addition to his salary!

As for magical items. Low level ones were expected to be found easily, but if you were playing with henchmen, it was expected that some the additional magical items would be donated to your henchmen. So selling these was not usually a thing that would often occur (unless you found zounds of them, them.their prices would go down asagic would not be that rare...)

For money. Did you trained? Did you pay for your henchmen training? Money in a standard AD&D was not that plentiful. A wizard was notoriously money broke forest of his career until named level was reached. Then the building of a tower, paying for new spells (as transcribing from scrolls was not always a success) were also a money drain that was quite effective.

Even spells were hard to find for an arcane caster as they had to either be found (random), bought (more money drain) or researched (even more money drain). I have seen groups putting their money into a pool so that their wizard(s) could have a spell for his new level. There were no cast at a higher level and if you had found no way to have a third level spells, then that cool new 5th level wizard would not cast any third level spells even if he was able. 1ed was a lot harder on casters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ho, a magicianmart type campaign you had. A lot of things it explains.
Scrolls, you had to pen them. Meaning you had to pay for the spell costs while creating them. If you went to buy one, the cost of actually casting the spell was in addition to the cost of the scroll. Having a henchmen doing for you was not free. If anything, you had to pay him even more to keep this hence happy and loyal.

No, not really. Just careful systematic identification of the most cost-effective techniques, knowing what stuff you wanted, finding out how and where to get it, and going after it. Yes, you pay costs to cast for scrolls, but under controlled conditions where you can deal with it properly.

Druid might not be available for hire, especially for dungeon delving. NPC druids would not approach a dungeon, but a cave network I could agree. Only PCs ever went into dungeons. But I tight be doable. A caster would charge a pretty steep salary. That NPC might even requires a share in addition to his salary!

Well, that's of course all up to interpretation. There's nothing hard and fast that says a D&D/1e Druid cannot or will not enter a dungeon. Henchmen generally ALWAYS get a share, usually at 25% if you follow convention. At least in my experience though, henchmen were pretty close to a necessity if you really wanted to get anything done. But that points out how WIDE the range of play styles are in D&D.

As for magical items. Low level ones were expected to be found easily, but if you were playing with henchmen, it was expected that some the additional magical items would be donated to your henchmen. So selling these was not usually a thing that would often occur (unless you found zounds of them, them.their prices would go down asagic would not be that rare...)

Generally items were pretty expensive and unlikely to be available in 1e, D&D itself has few 'rules' on that kind of thing.

For money. Did you trained? Did you pay for your henchmen training? Money in a standard AD&D was not that plentiful. A wizard was notoriously money broke forest of his career until named level was reached. Then the building of a tower, paying for new spells (as transcribing from scrolls was not always a success) were also a money drain that was quite effective.

I've seen about zilch games where training costs were really enforced, at least in the 1e way. The LG players I've talked to inform me Gary never used any such rule. I can see why you might if you give out tons of gold and need to take it all back, perhaps.

Even spells were hard to find for an arcane caster as they had to either be found (random), bought (more money drain) or researched (even more money drain). I have seen groups putting their money into a pool so that their wizard(s) could have a spell for his new level. There were no cast at a higher level and if you had found no way to have a third level spells, then that cool new 5th level wizard would not cast any third level spells even if he was able. 1ed was a lot harder on casters.

In our games magic users regularly traded and maintained pools of basic core spells. Additionally ANY NPC caster that fell under the axe was DEFINITELY going to yield up some sort of books we could copy (the most valuable of all treasure really). As for the rules on starting spells and what you might or might not get at level advance in any of these versions of D&D, there wasn't any consistent rule. AD&D indicates there is a MINIMUM of spells known, but exactly what that refers to is not obvious (perhaps it indicates that if you've checked comprehension of every possible spell and not met that number you can reroll some?) Nobody really knows!

As I recall, our normal practice was that your mentor handed you a spell of whatever new spell level you acquired access to, random generation. That pretty much follows on the rule in the DMG on initial starting spells. As I say, generally any established party/adventuring band/guild would have SOME sort of library that could be accessed. When I was playing in a club with about 100 other people there was an organized Guild, the higher level guys set the dues as they saw fit. If you didn't like that, you could always lump it, but some of them enforced a monopoly on copying spell formulae! lol. That was only one town though.

There were/are MANY valid approaches to D&D, which is one of the positive aspects of the original game (maybe a little less prevalent in B/X and 1e, but still mostly there).

 

[Charlaquin]

Strange, the 4ed was not rebuked by old grognards at the time but by the lovers of 3.xed. 3.xed was not reviled by old grognards but many of us simply skipped it. I remember being called a traitor simply for playing 3.xed by my peers.

These pro 3.xed were quite virulent on 4ed and when some of them learned that I was DMing it, they were outraged. I should have switched to PF, but when I was pointing that PF was simply 3.xed on steroids, Ho boy did I get it. And yet, in the end, with retrospect, these same accusatory people gave me nod and acknowledge that my analysis was quite spot on back then.

Well, at the time “grognard” meant “anyone who refuses to adopt the newest edition” to me. I was a relative newcomer and didn’t see a meaningful distinction between fans of various older editions.

I also wasn’t aware of anyone who played editions older than 3.5e. Like, in theory I figured some must exist, but in my mind they were a strange and negligible minority.

I really regret 4ed did not receive the welcome it should have had but I fully acknowledge that all classes in it were to similar to each other for the tastes of many. The famous WoW edition insult that it had received was not very far from the truth (if not spot on).

I gotta hard disagree with you on that one. 4e classes are less similar to each other than in any other edition, and the similarities to WoW are cosmetic at best.