Defining "old school" by vote

[Storm Raven]

Isn't that pretty much like Tomb of Horrors?{/quote]

I remember S1 as at least having some alternate routes and branching decision points. On the other hand, I have never asserted that S1 isn't railroady either.

I'm not going to derail this into a discussion on what is a railroad or not, but I never thought of the dungeons in A3 or the cross over from A3 to A4 as railroads -- though I never ran either of them (I ran A1 twice, and A2 once). Someone can start a new thread to discuss this specifically if they want.

Well, I would consider a dungeon that consisted of a single corridor with rooms along the way to be pretty railroady.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I wonder if the quality of DMs has changed drastically over time?

You would think that it would have, given we've had so much more time to learn how to do it.

If that's true and given that rules-lite systems such as OD&D and B/X are more dependent on the GM being good, one could make a case that rules-lite systems are a better choice now than they were in the 70s and early 80s. Back then people should've been using rules-heavy systems, cause GMs didn't know what the heck they were doing.

 

[Nellisir]

You would think that it would have, given we've had so much more time to learn how to do it.

If that's true and given that rules-lite systems such as OD&D and B/X are more dependent on the GM being good, one could make a case that rules-lite systems are a better choice now than they were in the 70s and early 80s. Back then people should've been using rules-heavy systems, cause GMs didn't know what the heck they were doing.

I think this is an excellent point. I didn't check anything on the poll, because nothing felt particularly "old-school" or "new-school". Most were "play" issues dependant on the group and the DM, and I absolutely believe that a bad DM is a bad DM regardless of the system, and a good DM is a good DM, regardless of the system. Individuals may be more or less comfortable with one system than another, but that's an individual preference. I ran 3e just like I ran 2e, and the same way I'd run 4e or Swords & Wizardry if I had an opportunity to play either of those. Disposable characters, for instance, is a campaign choice, not a game choice.

 

[rogueattorney]

Well, I would consider a dungeon that consisted of a single corridor with rooms along the way to be pretty railroady.

A linear dungeon is not a railroad. It might be boring and not particular interesting. In fact I'd argue that linear dungeons are generally just that. However, as long as the party can turn around and walk out without the DM's campaign falling to pieces, it's not a railroad.

S1 is quite linear. But, as written, there is no single action required of the party. They can turn around and walk out any time with no further campaign consequences. They are, in fact, encouraged to do so at a number of points.

 

[ki11erDM]

You will never come to a real consensus of what ‘Old School’ is, because play styles varied so wildly. Without the internet to quickly homogenize play styles you got wild derivations in play. It would be very difficult for any outside observer to think the 5 different groups I played with pervious to 3.0 were the same type of game let alone the same game.

 

[amysrevenge]

Literally, none of the above. There are several conspicuous absences, and probably then some.

I'm kind of curious why none of these would be a choice:

DM as antagonist
DM as referee
DM as lead story teller

Is it because none of these by themselves are representative of your vision of old school, or is it because there is some 4th option that is?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Is it because none of these by themselves are representative of your vision of old school

Yep. None of those is a thing I associate with 'old school'.

 

[Stoat]

With 97 voters at this time, the only items to get better than 50% are:
- Dungeons with no “ecological” sense, just full of monsters to slay
- Continuous dungeons for the PCs to crawl and hack through

Neither of these two items seem specific to any particular edition. I find that interesting.

 

[Ariosto]

The association of older rules sets in some minds with distasteful (or simply less "sophisticated") play may be due in part to "how we played when we were x years old".

The 1970s-80s did indeed see a proliferation of rules-heavy games, both published "systems" and house-rules sets. Chivalry & Sorcery (1977) comes to mind as an early example of the drive to detail that could exceed the complexity of 3E.

Along the way, "dungeon ecology" went from being an often useful tool in service of the game to a sort of ideology. D&D originally was presented quite unabashedly as a game; the simple reason for a dungeon's existence was to provide challenge and fun. That game-focused (which is not the same as rules-focused) philosophy might be more common in "old-school" dungeons. "Why is there a chasm in the Death Star?!" is the sort of question raised when one chooses to ignore the obvious answer: so Luke and Leia can swing across it.

My impression, though, is that on average the games have not become much (if any) more "naturalistic". Both the pure "funhouse" and "dour realism" remain outliers.

A steady diet of modules might well shape players' impression of the scope of the game -- sometimes in "new school" ways to which designers of later modules and rules-sets responded in a reinforcing cycle, but more generally perhaps in ways suggesting only a narrow range of variation. A judgment of "old school" on that (maybe very common) basis may be one cause for taking special note of trends in the 2e era.

Not having much experience with modules -- offhand, I think B1, G1-3, UK2-3 (?) and Dark Tower were the only ones I owned (or at least used) prior to 1987 -- I may have been more influenced by the books themselves, by The Strategic Review and The Dragon, and by interaction with other players similarly informed.

 

[Storm Raven]

A linear dungeon is not a railroad. It might be boring and not particular interesting. In fact I'd argue that linear dungeons are generally just that. However, as long as the party can turn around and walk out without the DM's campaign falling to pieces, it's not a railroad.

In A3, the players can walk out of the dungeon, but then the adventure falls to pieces. There is literally no way to advance into the Slave Lords lair except the canalized linear dungeon. And if the PCs don't get into the lair, the adventure ends.

The most annoying thing about A3, is that the linear entrance complex is guarded by gnolls who (we are told) move about the complex by means of a network of secret tunnels. Are these tunnels shown (even on the non-tournament map)? No. They are completely undetectable to the PCs, because if they were, then the PCs might have an option other than walking down the canalized path.

Also, when the PCs enter the canalized dungeon, they don't have much choice about leaving. They are shunted down an unclimbable slope of salt, and all options for going "backwards" in the linear dungeon are made virtually impossible, incredibly dangerous, or both.