Is "Old School" Overrated?

The biggest problem with this sort of argument is that, all too often (IME, nearly universally), it is shorthand for "I don't want to hear what you have to say, so shut up about it."
Please address my comments rather than inferring my intent.

It's not that the term has no meaning, it's that it is commonly used to mean at least two very different things. So to be clear, you have to explain what you mean each time you use the term, and as such you're better off coming up with a better, more descriptive term.


Edit: And I believe the term you're looking for is "quash", not squash.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Skill rolls and descriptive resolution.

Descriptive resolution can be used to set DC for a roll, or can eliminate the need for a roll overall. A roll can be used to provide information to aid in descriptive resolution. There is no dichotomy between the two; they are seperate things that can be used apart or together. No "vs." Apples & oranges instead of Macintosh vs. Granny Smith.


RC

But how do they determine whether or not something is old school or new school? Or are you saying they are independent of the school designation entirely?
 

Skill rolls and descriptive resolution.

Descriptive resolution can be used to set DC for a roll, or can eliminate the need for a roll overall. A roll can be used to provide information to aid in descriptive resolution. There is no dichotomy between the two; they are seperate things that can be used apart or together. No "vs." Apples & oranges instead of Macintosh vs. Granny Smith.


RC

Sure- but once you stamp the OS or NS moniker on one or the other you create the dichotomy.
 

1) Edition war? Duh. The "schools" are clearly defined by that preference. The only claims I've seen that 4e and OD&D are the same are those quickly followed by the paradoxical claim that 4e is better. Yeah, one of those is not serious. Why do people feel a need to do that? Why is it so freaking important to fans of the new thing that fans of the old thing also embrace it? Why do fans of the old thing imagine that somehow the other guys are someday going to exclaim, "You're right! Although they always repulsed me before, at long last I have come to love Brussels sprouts!" Or vice-versa? Weird, man.

2) No definition? See the above. The philosophizing is not about "what" but about "why". Why does one set of games work so well for us while another set serves so poorly? The members of one set have key things in common, and key differences from the members of the other set. Somehow, that's okay for the Rob Heinsoos but not for the Rob Kuntzes. Why the double standard?

3) Nostalgia? Maybe, for some people, and there's nothing wrong with that. "Just nostalgia" hurled at people to shout down any other reason for playing Game X is idiotic. Disco music might evoke memories for me, and those might produce a feeling of nostalgia. However, I don't like disco -- so "just nostalgia" is not going to give me a desire to listen to it; nothing is going to make me want to listen to disco!

4) Better mechanics? Baloney. We have not agreed upon any objective standard of "better". That we disagree on which is better demonstrates right up front that we have different values. Your opinion does not "trump" mine.

5) Better style of play? Baloney again, for the same reason.

6) The designers were incompetent hacks? Maybe in some particular cases. However, there is way too much nonsensical judging that they "failed" to attain a goal that in fact they were not pursuing. If I don't understand something, that says more about my ignorance than about the designer's intent. If I don't like something, it does not follow that nobody else likes it.
 

In the context of D&D I think the term 'old school' has a pretty clear meaning, referring to the pre-WotC editions. Some might regard 2e as not OS but if we take that out of the picture, there's no doubt that 1e, OD&D and B/X are OS, while 3e and 4e aren't.

That's only one sense of old school though, it gets trickier when you talk about OS feel and playstyles, partly because play was so diverse in the early days.
 

The game was also less about combat back then, which is an odd thing to say. It also wasn't much about roleplaying and diplomacy, either. Back then, treasure = XP. Monsters not so much. So figuring out that each player had to stand on the head of a statue in each corner of the room, while a 5th character pressed a button in the middle of the room (or a character sitting on a statue used a 10' pole to press it), well, that was more like it. We had to solve riddles a lot. Pick traps a lot. Jump ledges, pull levers, etc.
Videogame-y
 

I guess I haven't gamed long enough to determine what old school means. I'm happy with the way the game is presented and the way my group plays right now. So, yeah, I guess from my point of view, old school would be overrated. But, if old school is what a group enjoys, more power to them. Play what makes you happy.
 

My biggest issue with the Model T example is that it just doesn't fit. RPGs don't have "technical advancement." There are no limits to what you can write into an RPG, now hardline breaking points at which point "Well, we need to wait a few years for the tech to catch up." You can compare the technology of a Model T to the newest Aston Martin. You can say "Look, the engine has been improved, the chassis is better, etc, etc" You can't do that with an RPG. RPGs aren't more technologically advanced then one another, they're just different.

I know someone who love 2e. Who loves the rules, who loves THAC0, the whole bit. Not from nostalgia - he genuinely loves to play it and thinks it's the best. I'm sorry some of you don't know someone like that, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
 

My biggest issue with the Model T example is that it just doesn't fit. RPGs don't have "technical advancement."

There is advancement though. It's not in the area of technology or efficiency, but in the area of experience and knowledge, and no less important.

When Gary first set out to publish the original pamphlets, how many D&D gamers do you think there were in the entire world? A couple dozen? 30 years of accumulated experience, millions of sessions, thousands of groups the world over writing, talking about, and playing the game... All of that experience and real world testing absolutely informs game design, teaches designers what issues there are, gives shape and form to direct decisions that inform the style of a game system from top to bottom.

I sincerely doubt when making the game originally Gary wrestled over the player skills versus character skills debate (just by way of an example). That is an issue that arose with the thief class introducing skills, NWP being introduced in Dragon and the like. Those advancements came about from the player base growing and playing the game, experience from many sessions informing the issues of the day.

Now, we can identify these issues, designers and fans of theory discuss them at length, new systems are built around answering such questions. Advancement isn't in answering such a question definitively, but in recognizing that the question exists and having knowledge, gained from play experience, of the merits and flaws with the different approaches.

That's why I say this whole new-old thing is just nonsense. Most of the old school community doesn't play the actual older edition, but a retro-clone designed to emulate elements of the playstyle that edition, and that editions players at the time, represented. These retro-clones are designed with the knowledge and experience of the game industry as a whole, informed by the years of advancement as discussed above. The ways in which we gamed back in the day varied pretty much by the group, but a common, shared knowledge arose, issues were discussed and argued and answered in many cases, those answers informing the design of the next edition. That is to say, the designers of the next edition were informed by the community on what was more commonly played or where the players more often fell on one side or the other of a particular issue. The retro-clones are more like alternate reality versions of an edition (or the way the next edition could have gone, instead of the way it did). But for every group that played the game that way there were a 1000 that didn't. The design decisions that informed each new edition weren't born fully formed from Zeus's head, they came from the playing community, as did the designers.

We are all, really, playing the same game, in all its glorious forms.
 

My biggest issue with the Model T example is that it just doesn't fit. RPGs don't have "technical advancement." There are no limits to what you can write into an RPG, now hardline breaking points at which point "Well, we need to wait a few years for the tech to catch up." You can compare the technology of a Model T to the newest Aston Martin. You can say "Look, the engine has been improved, the chassis is better, etc, etc" You can't do that with an RPG. RPGs aren't more technologically advanced then one another, they're just different.

I don't think the Model T example really fits either. But I still think there is such a thing as technical advancement. Some mechanics that have appeared since the first days of D&D probably couldn't have appeared out of the ether. They had to have something to react to and develop from first.

That said, even though there is technical advancement, because gaming is a subjective experience, there is no real concept of objective progress or improvement.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top