Identifying "old school" adventure modules

[billd91]

Here might be an interesting thought experiment:

Say one of your gamer buddies said, "Hey, next game session, I'm gonna run an old school adventure."

Then he pulls out Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh or Pharoah. Would you say to him or think to yourself, "You're wrong. That's not old school."

Edit: I should probably stengthen this:

Say your group has agreed to only play old school adventures without specifically identifying any adventures. Then your DM starts up Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh or Pharoah. Would this be a break in the agreed game play?

Bullgrit

If we're rolling up 1st edition AD&D characters, then no. Old school/new school isn't an all or nothing thing. It's a continuum, a spectrum. Some games may use newer school modules with older school rules and styles and come up with a game that's decidedly more old school than not even though it may not be as old school as whipping up the AD&D characters for a run through White Plume Mountain.

 

[Ariosto]

You're saying they were all railroad plots instructing the DM to keep the PCs alive to go through a series?

Nope. You're the one making that a criterion.

 

[Bullgrit]

Old school/new school isn't an all or nothing thing. It's a continuum, a spectrum.

Is that spectrum based on time/date line or a set of aspects?

1978 - most old school
1980 - moderately old school
1985 - least old school

or

Plot-less, ecology-less, monster-filled dungeon crawl - most old school
Minor plot concept, some sense to monster placements, dungeon - moderately old school
Fully detailed plot, logical monster placement, not a dungeon - least old school

?

Bullgrit

 

[Doug McCrae]

Say one of your gamer buddies said, "Hey, next game session, I'm gonna run an old school adventure."

Then he pulls out Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh or Pharoah. Would you say to him or think to yourself, "You're wrong. That's not old school."

If he pulled out Sunless Citadel I wouldn't think that or tell him he was wrong. Because he wouldn't be wrong. It's just a sign that the meanings of terms can be wildly divergent depending on who you're talking to. The internet D&D community means something by 'old school' but I don't expect the real people I game with, who are mostly disconnected from message boards, to use the term in the same way.

 

[billd91]

Is that spectrum based on time/date line or a set of aspects?

1978 - most old school
1980 - moderately old school
1985 - least old school

or

Plot-less, ecology-less, monster-filled dungeon crawl - most old school
Minor plot concept, some sense to monster placements, dungeon - moderately old school
Fully detailed plot, logical monster placement, not a dungeon - least old school

?

Bullgrit

I disagree that logical monster placement matters much with respect to schoolness. There are older modules that have plenty of logical monster placement and 4e doesn't do much to encourage it compared to mid-school 2e.
But you're getting the idea with respect to plot elements.

I'd also add in specificity and depth of encounter area descriptions. The most old schoolish have the least (or no) boxed text, the least have detailed graphic setups like the delve format.

And detailed encounter expectations. The most old schoolish may detail the monster and it's general attitude. The least would map out likely responses, strategies, and dialogue.

For encounter design, I'd look at breadth of encounter challenges. Broader spreads from highest to weakest, even when generally tailored to the level of the party, would suggest old schoolness. Tighter clusters around encounter building guideliness and expectations would indicate less old school.

I don't look at publication date to indicate old school/new school. It's more a frame of mind and practice than of specific time.

 

[Ariosto]

Vecna Lives! starts with a preordained TPK, and ends with a deus ex machina making the players irrelevant. That was the culmination of a trend to see "the story" as something existing prior to play, rather than emerging from it.

As to the G and A modules: In a tournament, the top teams from one round automatically go on to the next; that's simply how elimination rounds work. It's much more evident in the A series. The giants' strongholds can easily be placed on a map and interact with the campaign in normal fashion.

 

[Bullgrit]

The most old schoolish have the least (or no) boxed text, the least have detailed graphic setups like the delve format.

Three of the modules identified as old school (including the most old school -- ToH) have illustration packs giving visuals for many rooms. Three of the four in the A series (A1 is chosen as old school) have detailed room graphics showing monster placement.

Is boxed text really a part of schoolness philosophy, or was it just a design technology? If someone had thought of boxed text in 1977, would Gygax have used it in his early materials? I think he probably would, because many of his modules included room descriptions in the text -- breaking that out into a boxed section helps the DM.

Bullgrit

 

[Ariosto]

If someone had thought of boxed text in 1977, would Gygax have used it in his early materials?

What's it matter? The Dangerous Journeys: Mythus game probably indicates in some ways (along with his comments directly addressing the question) what the shape of a Gygaxian Second Edition AD&D might have been. It does not follow that people who knock the actual 2e, 3e or 4e for similar features would be oohing over how "old school" the alternate-history 2e was!

 

[Henry]

The individual G, D, and Q modules had (SNIP)

Thanks, billd91. You have the gist of my thoughts on it. I3-5 had the whole "star gems" thing going on; "A" series was on the "cusp" of being a megaplot, and GDQ was more like a series of 1970's Golden Harvest films.

 

[Bullgrit]

What's it matter? The Dangerous Journeys: Mythus game probably indicates in some ways (along with his comments directly addressing the question) what the shape of a Gygaxian Second Edition AD&D might have been. It does not follow that people who knock the actual 2e, 3e or 4e for similar features would be oohing over how "old school" the alternate-history 2e was!

I don't understand your point here.

As for what's it matter: It was suggested that box text and graphic room representations were elements of schoolness.

The most old schoolish have the least (or no) boxed text, the least have detailed graphic setups like the delve format.

I was pointing out that I don't see how a graphic design element in module page layout relates to schoolness. Is a monochrome cover make a module more old school than a color cover? Isn't that more a technology (and financial) aspect than adventure design/philosophy element?

Edit: Actually I'm beginning to believe that a module's physical presentation -- graphic design, art, page layout -- is a core element in "old school".

My question about EGG was whether he would have disdained boxed text (a graphic design/page layout element) or would he have taken advantage of it had it been thought of in the early days of his module writing.

I don't see what this has to do with edition (BD&D and AD&D1 both had boxed text adventures), or what EGG might have done later.

Bullgrit