Defining "old school" by vote

[kitsune9]

I think defining old school is like herding cats. We're all going to have different definitions. Even if there was a loose and general consensus as to what it was, if that consensus thinks it's X, and I think it's Y, then to me, it will always be Y.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, for me, some of the key characteristics of "old school" gaming are:

1. The DM is more of a neutral referee instead of being an entertainer.
2. There are few or no guidelines for mechanical balance (in terms of encounter design, PC advancement, etc.) given to the DM, much less the players.
3. The PCs are assumed to be "normal" or "average".
4. The "common sense" and "real-world" knowledge of the DM is expected to trump the rules.
5. More use of challenges that rely on the players' ignorance, inattentiveness or carelessness to be effective (and immediately or very quickly deadly).

EDIT: Of the poll options, I only checked "DM as referee". The other elements don't have any bearing on whether a game is new or old school to me.

 

[Ariosto]

"DM as referee" is the only defining characteristic I see in that list.

"DM as lead story teller" seems to me incompatible, at least in the form in which I usually see it. "DM as antagonist" seems a characterization applied only to DMs who have departed from the "referee" role.

The rest I think irrelevant.

 

[billd91]

I'm not finding the poll to be very useful either. Too much mishmash of buzz phrases.

For me, old school means generally tending toward game rules and structures present in early RPGs as well as styles of play common or promoted by those rules. Old-schoolish factors include:

GM as neutral referee, not head storyteller
Vestiges of inspirational non-RPG games in the rules
Significant random element in character generation
More reliance on GM to balance game than on rules
Rules with broad gaps to be filled by GM rulings rather than rule structures designed to apply to most situations
Adventures published with less developed plots
Characters with less detailed structure

I'll probably think of more, but I've got to get dinner going...

 

[Bullgrit]

In particular the Slavers series has a sometimes-railroaded story arc, designed for competition play, though the rails aren't nearly as tight as in DL or some modern 'adventure paths'.

The GDQ series is sufficiently open in design, basically a series of loosely linked locales, that I think it's ok to call it moderately OS.

This is an interesting position. I have many quibbles with the Slaver (A1-4) series, but I would never have thought of them as railroaded. (The Scourge of the Slavelords compilation megamodule is all railroady as hell, but that came much later.)

If you think the A series is "sometimes-railroaded", what makes the G series not? (I think neither are railed.)

Bullgrit

 

[diaglo]

"DM as referee" is the only defining characteristic I see in that list.

same. i didn't see any of the others as strictly old school.

 

[diaglo]

This is an interesting position. I have many quibbles with the Slaver (A1-4) series, but I would never have thought of them as railroaded. (The Scourge of the Slavelords compilation megamodule is all railroady as hell, but that came much later.)

If you think the A series is "sometimes-railroaded", what makes the G series not? (I think neither are railed.)

Bullgrit

all of those were tournament modules first.
the G series for Origins in the late 70's
and the A series for Gen Con

 

[Doodles]

"DM as referee" is the only defining characteristic I see in that list.

Me too. It doesn't seem like the other options were particularly relevant to the topic, unfortunately.

 

[Clavis]

I consider the features of Old School D&D to be:
1. Challenges designed to be overcome by player skill.
2. Real-world knowledge more important than formal game rules.
3. Modular rules that can be altered or ignored when necessary.
4. Enjoyment of game play more important than fulfillment of rules.
5. Not all monsters must be fought.
6. Monsters might run away.
7. Broad, strongly archetypal character classes with details defined by role-playing.
8. Simple character generation.
9. Game play for everyone but the DM solely consists of what actually goes on at the table.
10. Abstract combat that can be played out in the imagination.
11. No pre-determined plot to the campaign.
12. PCs are allowed to die.
13. Adventurers are not necessarily good or heroic.
14. The universe as a whole has no bias for or against any moral or ethical point of view.

I contrast them with what I consider the features of New-School D&D:
1. Challenges designed to be overcome using game mechanics.
2. Knowledge of the formal game rules essential to player success.
3. Rules that are designed to be as complete and interlocking as possible.
4. Fulfillment of the rules essential to enjoyable game play.
5. Assumption that monsters who are placed will be fought.
6. Monsters don't usually run away.
7. Weakly archetypal character classes with formally defined options.
8. Complex character generation.
9. Character building and planning a major part of the game experience.
10. Complex and tactical combat that requires miniatures or counters.
12. PCs are not supposed to die.
13. Adventurers are assumed to be good and heroic.
14. The universe is biased towards law and goodness.

 

[FireLance]

I consider the features of Old School D&D to be:
1. Challenges designed to be overcome by player skill.
4. Enjoyment of game play more important than fulfillment of rules.

I contrast them with what I consider the features of New-School D&D:
1. Challenges designed to be overcome using game mechanics.
4. Fulfillment of the rules essential to enjoyable game play.

Without going into the issue of which is "old school" and which is "new school", I thought that these were two good examples of how marrying the two approaches creates something that to me is better than either approach in isolation.

For example, I believe that there should always be a standard "objective" way to overcome a challenge through the use of game mechanics. However, this should not rule out the possibility of using player skill to find a better way to overcome the challenge. The default approach thus becomes a safety net for the players while they use their imagination and creativity to explore other ways to handle the problem.

Similarly, the philosophy that the game is meant to be enjoyed, if necessary, in spite of the rules, should inform the way that the rules are designed. The rules of the game should be crafted to support enjoyable game play, perhaps over other considerations such as simulating how the real world works.