aboyd
Explorer
Hmm. Well, I'm the old school grognard in that other thread, so I suppose it's OK for me to chime in here.
I am right now sitting here looking at my original red Basic D&D softcover rule book. The copyright is 1980. I was 9 then. I can tell you that there are some things that I dread about this old game. In particular, on page 5, the rules for creating a character are mean. Roll 3d6 for each ability in order, then pick which class you want based upon your best ability... if you even have a good ability from those rolls.
Also, elf is a class?
Also, the fragility of characters is astounding. You can die from a dog sneezing on you. Being a bit of a simulationist (rather than gamist), I like the fragility, as anyone in the real world who has done sword fighting will tell you that it's brutal and quick. However, it's so realistic that it makes the game unfun for me to a small degree. Small changes (such as the 3rd edition rule that you have max HP at 1st level) were enough to mitigate most of my concerns there.
Having said that, there are things about old school gaming that I am very attracted to. A couple of days ago, I had lunch with my friend Paul, and the conversation turned to the old module, White Plume Mountain. We talked about what made it great, and for me, the thing I liked was the notion that I had no idea what these monsters were. It was one of my first adventures as a player, and walking into a tiered room with a different monster on each level was like an "amusement park for adventurers." For all I knew, any of those monsters would insta-kill my character. I couldn't say what they did, couldn't gauge their deadliness, etc. We were sooooo careful and curious.
Also, the negotiation with the DM was a big deal. There were no feats, no pre-defined tricks. If you wanted to run up the side of the wall to get around the enemy and then wallop the monster on the back of the head, you didn't cite the Wallrunner feat, you described the action to the DM and then he would tell you something like, "Hmm... that's difficult... so it probably takes Dexterity and Strength... let's say, roll a check for each and if you pass then you accomplish it and may take a swing." If the DM was too generous, you ended up with characters being ridiculous. If the DM was too restrictive, you ended up doing nothing but the barest of actions, really boring. Part of the fun of the game was talking about DMs and finding out who was the best.
As I said in the other thread, what I've just described is a nightmarish tyranny to some nowadays. The idea that the DM will make stuff up and you can't double-check it or confirm it? Terrible for some. Back then, it was all we knew, and we liked the game, so we talked about DMs and enjoyed ourselves. It wasn't adversarial or the kind of thing where we would accuse the DM of being on a power trip -- it was just expected that the DM did have power, so he wasn't tripping at all.
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.
We were very cautious about what we did. Say the wrong thing and the DM would unleash a poison trap that insta-killed you. You don't say, "I check the statue for traps" because checking = trap goes off. You say, "I look at the statue without touching it. Do I see any obvious depressions or lines that might imply a button exists?"
I recently played the game Mage, and I was happy to note that it included some of the same concepts. You have powers that are broadly defined, and you basically work with your DM to shape those powers into spells. His job is to arbitrate, to make sure powers don't get out of hand, but also to make sure that the powers do provide some forward momentum to the module. You cannot rules-lawyer the GM in a Mage game, because the game specifically has "THE GM GETS TO DECIDE" as a core rule concept. To me, I found this returned me to a place where everything was exploratory, experimental, and enjoyable.
All these things have stuck with me. They were fun then, and I still enjoy it now, even if many don't. I run modules that have a high number of traps or tricks. I revise almost everything so that players cannot assume anything about monsters or treasure. I use rare monster books that most people don't own (such as Denizens of Avadnu) so that players are surprised. I apply templates or advance the monster or give it class levels. I reward shrewd players and allow bad things to happen to players who act rashly. While I've done away with most arbitrary insta-killing stuff, I will indeed kill characters at a spectacular rate if the players won't heed danger signs.
Also, this.
So to me, is old school overrated? Well, I don't know how its currently rated, so I can't tell if its too high or too low. However, what I can say is that there are elements of old school gaming that I not only prefer, but that without with, I won't bother to play or DM. Some old school is necessary, at least for me. Other parts of old school, such as THAC0, I can't stand.
Also, if you wish to file this under "mid-school gaming" -- there is one aspect of 3rd edition that I now have a taste for. That is, I like the twisty little mazes of character building. I like that a character can be built "wrong" and that making a good character is something to be commended. I like reading up on character builds and finding an unusually good application of a spell or whatnot.
Of course, I'm an INTP personality type, so it makes sense that someone whose brain is wired to get off on how things could be improved would like such things.
