Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 9383871" data-attributes="member: 2205">Not really. Some older games hadn't yet figured out mechanical solutions to needs that their players had and therefore via a combination of inertia and lack of innovation may have resembled D&amp;D more than an equivalent game today would. But there's a lot less of that than people assert, and that period was shorter lives than people think too. The real constraint back in the day was that without the internet mechanical innovations spread much slower than they do now. But the playstyle preferences were there all along, and we wrestled (and to a great degree, designers too) to get our games to do what we wanted them to do with fewer tools then e take for granted now. There seems a lot less inpetus to house rule games to death now because it's much easier to find a game that does 95% of what you want as written. I never played a game in the 80s, 90s and frankly even we'll into the 00s that wasn't heavily houseruled. Why? Because in spite of what the game presented (or didn't present) to you, I never played in a game that followed an &quot;old school&quot; playstyle paradigm. This was, however, ESPECIALLY true for D&amp;D vs other games or other genres. One major change and significant difference between most of what the OSR does vs actual old style gaming is the reduced emphasis on so called Gygaxian naturalism and the idea that the world needed rules to stimulate what was happening when the PCs weren't interacting with it. For instance. But that's just one example. The idea that old games as disparate as B/X and Runequest and James Bond and Boot Hill and even Tunnels &amp; Trolls are old school just because they're old means that old school can't possibly have a coherent meaning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 9383871, member: 2205"] Not really. Some older games hadn't yet figured out mechanical solutions to needs that their players had and therefore via a combination of inertia and lack of innovation may have resembled D&D more than an equivalent game today would. But there's a lot less of that than people assert, and that period was shorter lives than people think too. The real constraint back in the day was that without the internet mechanical innovations spread much slower than they do now. But the playstyle preferences were there all along, and we wrestled (and to a great degree, designers too) to get our games to do what we wanted them to do with fewer tools then e take for granted now. There seems a lot less inpetus to house rule games to death now because it's much easier to find a game that does 95% of what you want as written. I never played a game in the 80s, 90s and frankly even we'll into the 00s that wasn't heavily houseruled. Why? Because in spite of what the game presented (or didn't present) to you, I never played in a game that followed an "old school" playstyle paradigm. This was, however, ESPECIALLY true for D&D vs other games or other genres. One major change and significant difference between most of what the OSR does vs actual old style gaming is the reduced emphasis on so called Gygaxian naturalism and the idea that the world needed rules to stimulate what was happening when the PCs weren't interacting with it. For instance. But that's just one example. The idea that old games as disparate as B/X and Runequest and James Bond and Boot Hill and even Tunnels & Trolls are old school just because they're old means that old school can't possibly have a coherent meaning. [/QUOTE]

Verification