Do you consider 2nd edition AD&D "old-school"

[kitsune9]

In many of these discussions on this board, we talk about how things were done old-school/back in the day.

However, I've noticed that when people say this, they refer either to OD&D or 1st edition AD&D. Conversely, both 3e and 4e are considered "modern/new school". For example, the thread talking about game lethality seems to a discussion between how stuff was done in 1e/Od&D vs 3e vs 4e.

So what about 2nd edition though? Doesn't 2nd edition have its own type of feel?

I consider 2nd edition "ye olde skool". I know that there are many gamers who would consider 1st ed or OD&D as old school and that's it, and I can their point, but I feel 2nd ed qualifies as the change from 1st to 2nd had some, but nothing really earthshaking like 2nd to 3rd.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Re: OS & NS

A wise man once wrote: "Every game is strongly flavored by the underlying mechanics. If the new design truly is revolutionary, it probably does not support the flavor of D&D as we have known it up to this point." (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4848129-post16.html)

It seems unlikely that the same person would deny that the underlying mechanics of older TSR games and newer WotC games flavour the game strongly (i.e., that OS & NS are not a false dichotomy), but there it is.

Perhaps there is a rational explaination for this apparent paradox?


RC

 

[M.L. Martin]

Re: OS & NS

A wise man once wrote: "Every game is strongly flavored by the underlying mechanics. If the new design truly is revolutionary, it probably does not support the flavor of D&D as we have known it up to this point." (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4848129-post16.html)

It seems unlikely that the same person would deny that the underlying mechanics of older TSR games and newer WotC games flavour the game strongly (i.e., that OS & NS are not a false dichotomy), but there it is.

Perhaps there is a rational explaination for this apparent paradox?


RC

Perhaps the possibility that you're talking past each other? I don't think Umbran is denying the possibility of distinctions, only that "old school" vs. "new school" may not be the right distinction.

I admit, I consider it an oversimplification myself. Trying to lump white-box D&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and BECMI into one category and 3E, 4E, and all their offspring into another seems to break down when you look closely--and any attempt to maintain an 'old school'/'new school' dichotomy collapses completely if one dares to look beyond the *D&D family.

 

[rogueattorney]

Perhaps the possibility that you're talking past each other? I don't think Umbran is denying the possibility of distinctions, only that "old school" vs. "new school" may not be the right distinction.

I admit, I consider it an oversimplification myself. Trying to lump white-box D&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and BECMI into one category and 3E, 4E, and all their offspring into another seems to break down when you look closely--and any attempt to maintain an 'old school'/'new school' dichotomy collapses completely if one dares to look beyond the *D&D family.

You see this, for example, in how "dungeon-centric" (for lack of a better word) the various editions have been. OD&D and Basic D&D were almost entirely dungeon-centric. Advanced D&D and ECMI didn't have as much dungeon material in it, largely due to the fact that the authors thought that the issue was something that was already covered in OD&D/BD&D, but sometimes leaving the impression that dungeoneering was something you grew out of. The 2e core rules were almost devoid of dungeon-centric content, and the supplementary rules often gave the impression that dungeon-delving was at best passe, at worst juvenile.

3e was then "Back to the dungeon!" And the 4e rules seem to me to be even more dungeon-centric than 3e was.

So, is dungeon based gaming old school or new school? Or are dungeon-based adventures c. 1977 even the same animal as dungeon-based adventures c. 2008? Wandering monsters, pixel bitching, and the mapper versus encounters per day, "taking 20," and counting squares on the battle board.

 

[Raven Crowking]

double post

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think Umbran is denying the possibility of distinctions, only that "old school" vs. "new school" may not be the right distinction.

Mechanically, there is a certain unifying element to pre-3e games, just as there are mechanical unifying elements to post 2e games. One can take a random page of mechanics from any TSR or WotC book, and I would hazard that over 90% of readers would know which era the rule comes from.

If every game truly is strongly flavoured by its underlying mechanics, then this is a meaningful distinction because the mechanics are meaningfully distinct.

I admit, I consider it an oversimplification myself. Trying to lump white-box D&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and BECMI into one category and 3E, 4E, and all their offspring into another seems to break down when you look closely--and any attempt to maintain an 'old school'/'new school' dichotomy collapses completely if one dares to look beyond the *D&D family.

Any system of categorization, no matter how nominally useful, breaks down when you look closely. Witness the recent (2008-2009) articles published re: species and classification of living beings via kingdoms. Indeed, even the classification of "living" vs. "non-living" breaks down when examined closely.

That doesn't mean that categorization is useless.....merely that it is not absolute.

IOW, the perils of categorization are no different, and no greater, than those of using language itself. The refusal to categorize is the refusal to define, and leaves language meaningless.

Now, Umbran could be imagining that the statement "Some games are old school, and some games are new school" presupposes no possibility that some games are both, or occupy a liminal space between these categories, or exist outside of these categories. Rather as though the statement "Some animals are birds, and some animals are fish" precluded some animals from being mammals, reptiles, or amphibians.....or precluded the existence of plants, fungi, etc.

If one imagines that all games must be OS or NS, that these are sharply divided categories, and that there is no grey space between them, then one has, indeed, created a false dichotomy. But the false dichotomy doesn't exist because one recognizes the usefulness of the OS/NS labels. It exists because one imagines those categories to be (or to be meant to be taken as) absolutes.

They are not.

(Note also that the poll heading this thread demonstrates that they are understood to not be absolutes by at least a third of the EN Worlders who responded, as well as by the OP.)



RC

 

[Ariosto]

It is very much D&D-centric, but people who like old D&D have found other games with similar design philosophy; besides other TSR games, Tunnels & Trolls and Traveller are prominent examples.

Trying to lump white-box D&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and BECMI into one category and 3E, 4E, and all their offspring into another seems to break down when you look closely.

Well, look at this:

A sloth-like, bat-faced beast hangs from a branch, stillness in waiting and the concealment offered by foliage giving it a 50% chance of surprising passers-by below when it drops on them to attack with great claws.

Slubbering slogger: AC 7; MV 6"; HD 3+1; hp 15; #AT 2; D 1-6/1-6
Due to its clumsiness on the ground, it always strikes last.

Only the move rate would identify this as to edition, for it would be 60' (20') if written with Moldvay or Mentzer in mind (and the stat block would probably include a morale rating). Everything else is usable as-is with any TSR edition.

 

[Nifft]

I consider 2e to be Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, because that's the only 2e game I ever played.

My life went kinda like: OD&D blue & red boxes -> 1e -> puberty -> girls -> college -> job -> video games -> 3e.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Odhanan]

While we certainly could engage in laundry lists of what would qualify as "old" or "new school", we will ultimately arrive to the conclusion that these terms' definitions are not set in stone and fluctuate constantly from debate to debate, and debator to debator. Which is true.

I guess I just wanted to cut through all that potentially wasted internet space and get right to my personal conclusion: though details may vary between individuals and their perceptions of what these overall nebulous, fluctuant ideas entail, there are noticeable tendencies towards concepts one could choose to brand "old" and "new school".

And you know what? I know them when I see them.
People are free to disagree. That won't automatically change my mind.
That's about it, really.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Slubbering slogger: AC 7; MV 6"; HD 3+1; hp 15; #AT 2; D 1-6/1-6
Due to its clumsiness on the ground, it always strikes last.

Only the move rate would identify this as to edition, for it would be 60' (20') if written with Moldvay or Mentzer in mind (and the stat block would probably include a morale rating). Everything else is usable as-is with any TSR edition.

Granted. There are two problems with trying to apply 'old school' and 'new school' to D&D editions without qualification or nuance, IMO:

1) There's the question of whether the speaker is using them primarily mechanically or philosophically. The two elements, though not independent, are distinct. BECMI, 1E and 2E all have strongly similar mechanics, but differ in key ways in the style of game they encourage through their writing and culture.

2) I think 'new school' is too broad a term, even if limited to "WotC D&D." 3E and 4E differ from each other in key ways, almost as much as either differs from any other edition of the game. I still think 3E is the endpoint of certain design trends in AD&D, while 4E is virtually a new derivative from OD&D, but unless 'new school' simply means 'not old school' or 'doubleplusungood,' it's not really that useful a term.