How is Old School not at least related to nostalgia?

[Nifft]

Again, re Sense of Wonder: as Umbran said, we don't initially play to recapture SoW. Whether as a child or teenager, the SoW is pretty effortless. As we get older, the brain-paths slowly harden, and it may become harder to experience SoW.

In my experience, even grown-ups can get that effortless SoW from their first RPG. It may not be age-related at all -- it may just be that becoming more media-savvy saps SoW out of any particular media, including RPGs.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hussar]

While it's all very well and good for nostalgia to be seen as a positive, and in many cases it can be, there are also many cases where nostalgia, as defined as a yearning for a past that never was, makes conversation very, very difficult.

Take, as an example, the frequent claims that are seen on message boards. For example, I recently had a conversation on this board where posters claimed that 1e AD&D was a rules light game. Their justification for this was that they played 1e AS a rules light game by ejecting large swaths of the rules.

While that may be 100% true, it doesn't make AD&D a rules light system. The problem is, some people want to define 1e as rules light because it somehow makes it more playable than later editions. The line goes something like, "See, 1e is great, it's so easy and fast, not like that clunky, slow, overcomplicated (pick edition du jour)".

This is where nostalgia gets a rather ugly face. The way I played or you played or Bob played (or currently play for that matter) doesn't change the facts. In this case, the fact is, 1e is most certainly not a rules light system. The criticism that goes with that idea, that 1e is simpler, and therefore better, just falls down in the face of actual facts.

But, to this day, I still see people swear up and down that 1e is a rules light system because that's the way they played.

 

[Mallus]

It may not be age-related at all -- it may just be that becoming more media-savvy saps SoW out of any particular media, including RPGs.

Right. Wonder is related to surprise. You can't surprise people with the familiar. And the more a person is exposed to something --ah, the joys of specificity!-- the more familiar with it they become.

This isn't a matter of age, it's a fundamental property of learning. The problem is, when you talk about genre entertainment like fantasy gaming, there's a limit to how much new and surprising the audience will tolerate. Somewhat paradoxically, they want the old familiar conventions and the delight of the new, and there are only so many ways you can put lipstick on an elf --believe me, I've tried in my campaigns.

In theory I want my games to provide 'sense of wonder'. What I usually end up with is 'sense of bewilderment' or 'sense of WTF was he thinking?!', which works well enough to transport my group back to the Golden Mental Age of 14 (give or take) when most of us started playing D&D.

 

[JohnRTroy]

First off, when we refer to nostalgia or what I pointed out as "The Golden Age is 12", is not about "reliving when you were young", its more about "reliving the sense of wonder regarding that particular thing".

Nostalgia and "fun" are not mutually exclusive things. Nostalgia IS remembering the fun.

Nostalgia is not a bad thing, and even though Grogdog posted some reasons, I'm surprised at the negative reactions. I don't know about other people, but I don't use it as an epithet. There are games marketed towards the nostalgia market. All the "old school" PDFs that use Century Gothic font for the interior and try their best to recreate the look of TSR modules from 1977-1983, the ones that get Erol Otus to do the covers, etc. That's specifically being done for a reason.

I think the important thing to look at is just to be aware of nostalgia and how it can color or influence our opinions. The feeling itself is a tool, but it can be used for "good or evil", if you'll pardon the expression.

Hussar brings up a very good point. I think "the dark side" comes off when you try "too hard" to defend it. That gets back to the artistic points I made earlier. While art can be subjective, there are some standards for it that can be used to at least attain a rudimentary quality. Lets face it, much of the art in the 1e Monster Manual is not as well-drafted as the stuff that came in the later days of 1e, once TSR was able to get into bookstores and hire more people. The art was inconsistent because artists usually cost more than writers, and back then it was just people from the wargaming industry who moved there. And it goes double for layout and presentation--we have come a long way from the days of the xacto knife and paying for a printer--color, fonts, tools for layout, they've all improved and if people want to argue that the "old look was better" and try to argue it from an objective standpoint rather than at least considering it might be based on them experiencing it the "golden age", it could be a problem.

Nostalgia can also blind us after the fact, and get being thinking things were better back then, and can lead to myths about the past.

For D&D, I see a lot of old-schoolers complain about the changes after EGG left, but really, there are several holes in that theory. If the Blume/Williams war didn't happen, Gary might have still been spending his focus on Hollywood. Unearthed Arcana, which a lot of people criticize, would have influenced the revision, and the "hated Zeb Cook", who I think is on the brunt of criticism for being the "scab" who created second edition, would have been working with EGG along with Jeff Grubb on the 2e--just read one of Gary's final columns before the big battle occured. We would have likely seen Ed Greenwood in a creative capacity (as well as Roger Moore), maybe even seeing his Forgotten Realms and Bob Salvatore might have still be hired by TSR as a novelist and still created his characters--maybe Drizzt would have been on Oerth instead of Toril, for instance. So all this "bitching and moaning" about what might have been seems to be a more idealistic view of the past. I tend to think no matter what would have happened, you'd still have a segment of upset, grumpy gamers no matter what, simply because the rules changed.

Similarly, I think arguments can be tinged by nostalgia. On the one hand, I reject that there is a strict, formal, science to creating an RPG, and 1e works just as well as 2e, 3e, and 4e. The rules are the rules and they can be enjoyed by all, based on your tastes. On the other hand, there are arguments that can be made about how well-thought and versitle they are--"Percentile Strength" is a pretty blunt "add on" to an existing system, while stuff like 2e's THACO and 3e consolidation of Saving Throws into 3 distinct categories show a consolidation in an effort to make things easier to memorize as well as more versititily (1e saves are tied incredibly to magical effects, while 3e can handle new things such as radiation and science-fiction elements).

I guess what I'm saying is that people need to look at their own internal opinions and see if nostalgia might influence them. There is no guilt in just preferring AD&D to 4e if you enjoy it. I think most of the arguments come down to advocacy from either side, or fear that your opinion is in the minority, or dismissing the other perspectives as "stupid".

 

[Treebore]

First off, when we refer to nostalgia or what I pointed out as "The Golden Age is 12", is not about "reliving when you were young", its more about "reliving the sense of wonder regarding that particular thing".

Nostalgia and "fun" are not mutually exclusive things. Nostalgia IS remembering the fun.

Nostalgia is not a bad thing, and even though Grogdog posted some reasons, I'm surprised at the negative reactions. I don't know about other people, but I don't use it as an epithet. There are games marketed towards the nostalgia market. All the "old school" PDFs that use Century Gothic font for the interior and try their best to recreate the look of TSR modules from 1977-1983, the ones that get Erol Otus to do the covers, etc. That's specifically being done for a reason.

I think the important thing to look at is just to be aware of nostalgia and how it can color or influence our opinions. The feeling itself is a tool, but it can be used for "good or evil", if you'll pardon the expression.

Hussar brings up a very good point. I think "the dark side" comes off when you try "too hard" to defend it. That gets back to the artistic points I made earlier. While art can be subjective, there are some standards for it that can be used to at least attain a rudimentary quality. Lets face it, much of the art in the 1e Monster Manual is not as well-drafted as the stuff that came in the later days of 1e, once TSR was able to get into bookstores and hire more people. The art was inconsistent because artists usually cost more than writers, and back then it was just people from the wargaming industry who moved there. And it goes double for layout and presentation--we have come a long way from the days of the xacto knife and paying for a printer--color, fonts, tools for layout, they've all improved and if people want to argue that the "old look was better" and try to argue it from an objective standpoint rather than at least considering it might be based on them experiencing it the "golden age", it could be a problem.

Nostalgia can also blind us after the fact, and get being thinking things were better back then, and can lead to myths about the past.

For D&D, I see a lot of old-schoolers complain about the changes after EGG left, but really, there are several holes in that theory. If the Blume/Williams war didn't happen, Gary might have still been spending his focus on Hollywood. Unearthed Arcana, which a lot of people criticize, would have influenced the revision, and the "hated Zeb Cook", who I think is on the brunt of criticism for being the "scab" who created second edition, would have been working with EGG along with Jeff Grubb on the 2e--just read one of Gary's final columns before the big battle occured. We would have likely seen Ed Greenwood in a creative capacity (as well as Roger Moore), maybe even seeing his Forgotten Realms and Bob Salvatore might have still be hired by TSR as a novelist and still created his characters--maybe Drizzt would have been on Oerth instead of Toril, for instance. So all this "bitching and moaning" about what might have been seems to be a more idealistic view of the past. I tend to think no matter what would have happened, you'd still have a segment of upset, grumpy gamers no matter what, simply because the rules changed.

Similarly, I think arguments can be tinged by nostalgia. On the one hand, I reject that there is a strict, formal, science to creating an RPG, and 1e works just as well as 2e, 3e, and 4e. The rules are the rules and they can be enjoyed by all, based on your tastes. On the other hand, there are arguments that can be made about how well-thought and versitle they are--"Percentile Strength" is a pretty blunt "add on" to an existing system, while stuff like 2e's THACO and 3e consolidation of Saving Throws into 3 distinct categories show a consolidation in an effort to make things easier to memorize as well as more versititily (1e saves are tied incredibly to magical effects, while 3e can handle new things such as radiation and science-fiction elements).

I guess what I'm saying is that people need to look at their own internal opinions and see if nostalgia might influence them. There is no guilt in just preferring AD&D to 4e if you enjoy it. I think most of the arguments come down to advocacy from either side, or fear that your opinion is in the minority, or dismissing the other perspectives as "stupid".

Better watch it or your "myths of the past" will start another edition war. I just played 1E for the first time in many years at Gen Con, and we had a lot of fun. That is no myth, and has nothing to do with "nostalgia", its pure fact, RPG's are fun, and I suspect our dim memories of the past actually fool people into believing current RPG's are better than old, when they are not.

I thought I would be too turned off by 1E, I was wrong. I had fun. I played a mage, where most of the time I just hid during combat because I couldn't even safely throw my darts. Definitely not a 4E game where I could have been doing something every round, but I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the challenge of the whole thing. So it wasn't the same kind of fun as 4E, or 3E, would give me, but I enjoyed it none the less.

All the editions give us are different interpretations of how to play a fantasy RPG, and they are all perfectly capable of giving us a fun time. We just may have to ignore certain rules, change and house rule other rules, to turn it into an even more enjoyable game, but I have done that with every single RPG.

So all the newer editions have given me is a new set of rules to turn into a game I like playing. So the only thing that has changed is what rules I have to change to achieve my goals. I still have fun.

No nostalgia required.

 

[Ariosto]

But, to this day, I still see people swear up and down that 1e is a rules light system because that's the way they played.

The characterization is due to the ease -- both practical and psychological -- of playing that way. Both elements are inherited from the original game.

With a collection of modular accretions upon a simple core, it is practically easy to choose which to add to one's own mix. With such selection a normative expectation, part of the convention of the DM as final word on what constitutes a rule in his or her own campaign, it is psychologically easy as well.

In AD&D, Gygax did not alter the practical; he did not make a thoroughly integrated "system" of D&D. His attempt to create a psychological investment in conformity received responses ranging from enthusiastic embrace to immediate rejection (largely being simply ignored).

The notion that "everything is core" goes even beyond Gygax at his most "by the books or not AD&D" insistent. By the same measure, no game with what today is commonly considered "support" could qualify as "rules light".

The first four Gygaxian AD&D works (including Deities & Demigods as the fourth) were mostly compilations and revisions of material from the D&D supplement volumes and magazine articles. (UA compiled material from AD&D modules and The Dragon, plus some new bits, and MM2 included new as well as reprinted AD&D monsters). Just being aware of that may be "old school", but it is fact. In other words, most of AD&D was first OD&D -- so someone playing with just the original set (or any of the "basic" sets derived from it) is just as "wrong" to call it rules light. Apply that standard -- as WotC seems to suggest -- to 4e, and what will you have by the time of DMG3?

Lump together a fraction of everything ever published for Risus and call the collection "the rules", and of course you can call it "rules heavy". That's not likely to fly with most actual players of the game, for the same reason that we don't buy it in the case of AD&D.

The psychological (and maybe even practical) ease may have been enhanced at the start of 2e, but by the end it had paved the way for the "gotta use it; it's the rules" attitude common in the WotC era.

The perceived excesses of 3e and 4e are the really significant measure next to which AD&D is considered "rules light".

 

[JohnRTroy]

Better watch it or your "myths of the past" will start another edition war. I just played 1E for the first time in many years at Gen Con, and we had a lot of fun. That is no myth, and has nothing to do with "nostalgia", its pure fact, RPG's are fun, and I suspect our dim memories of the past actually fool people into believing current RPG's are better than old, when they are not.

How is anything I wrote even near an "edition war"?

The "myth" terms don't and never apply to people who enjoy the game just by playing it. I was targeting how nostalgic feelings can blind us to legitimate criticisms. Based on your statement here you didn't really read my post carefully.

With a collection of modular accretions upon a simple core, it is practically easy to choose which to add to one's own mix. With such selection a normative expectation, part of the convention of the DM as final word on what constitutes a rule in his or her own campaign, it is psychologically easy as well.

I think this is true in ways. I know it took me a long time to get used to DC and stop using the term -4 to hit or to save. If you are exposed to a game at an early age and/or spend a LOT of time with it, it may be harder to get used to other games or changes.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

There seems to be an awful lot of these "Old School Renaissance?"/"Nostalgia"? threads around these days. I'm guessing because 4e is preceived as being such a break from previous system traditions. (As quite possibly WHFRP 2e vs. 3e)

Me? I must live nostalgia all the time, I'm still playing the same game as I was nearly 30 years ago:

Call of Cthulhu

and I'm comfortable with that.

"Nostalgia" is usually a temporary state, if it does not wane, it's likely not nostalgia...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Regarding Nostalgia seen negatively:

Unfortunately, like 90% of the time when nostalgia is mentioned in most conversations regarding D&D, it's to say "Your edition sucks, and the only reason you like it is because of your rose colored nostalgia goggles."

I'm not saying that's what you the OP or you the person on this thread said, merely the mindset that most people have in entering the thread. When they see/hear "You like it because of nostalgia," they mentally add the "And that's the only reason why" at the end.

 

[Ariosto]

It's like saying that people like Edition X because "it's like a video game".

If that's the case for Joe Blow, then he can speak for himself.

There's really no need for someone else to tell him why he likes it. It's asinine to shout him down and effectively call him a liar when he gives his own account.