Is "Old School" Overrated?

[Scribble]

Oh believe me, Old School D&D is definitely overrated...

6. In the 70's, all the players had that gawd awful thick porno mustache & wore shorts that were much too short. Now players sport the cooler looking neck-beard & even wear tight fitting belly shirts that aren't really belly shirts.

I mean, I could go on and on about how Old School D&D is overrated...

I shall illustrate your point with imagery:

Oldskool Scribble (2e era.)

Newskool Scribble (4e era)

 

[Scribble]

That isn't snark. You either didn't read the post you were responding to, or I failed to state clearly enough what I was saying. So I repeated/made clearer.

My post you responded to included:

That's a bit on the self aggrandizing side don't you think? My post wasn't responding to your post. (At least not yours in particular.) I would have thought the lack of quotes would indicate that... My post was a question in general. If we're going to use the words oldschool and newschool to describe game play/design then I want a bit more definition. What makes something oldschool. What makes it newschool. Otherwise whats the point of having the terms. If there is no difference why not just say gaming?

I disagree with your premise that there must be some sort of cutoff between the terms to make them useful.

Again cutoff can be flexible. One model Ford, and another model of ford are similar in many ways, but sooner or later they become different models.

 

[Oryan77]

I shall illustrate your point with imagery:

That is hilarious! And see, you look miserable when you were playing Old School D&D. But look how freaking happy you look playing 4e!

You just proved my point. Case closed...no need for anyone to debate this any further. Between Scribble & myself, we have proven our case. Mods, can you please lock this thread now? Thanks....

 

[rogueattorney]

Here. (IMO)

I'd go about a year earlier to here as the end of the old school. It's not necessarily the beginning of the "new school." I'm a believer that there is one or more "mid schools."

 

[Scribble]

That is hilarious! And see, you look miserable when you were playing Old School D&D. But look how freaking happy you look playing 4e!

On the day that oldskool pic was taken (my college ID) I tried to get this girls number and she turned me down kind of hard...

On the day that newskool pic was taken... I got married!

Sooo... oldskool = getting turned down by girls. Newskool = getting married.

Thank you D&D 4e!

 

[billd91]

Presumes a dichotomy where there is none.

Where is the cutoff point between "automobile" and "lion"?


RC

I think this is pushing off the wrong direction. Old school/new school, as I see it, is more of a spectrum. Factors push in one direction, other factors push in the other, and the demarcation line between the two is a shadowy blending of the two and not some hard and fast line. Nevertheless, there are differences between comparable components. That's the point of saying something is old school vs new school.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a bit on the self aggrandizing side don't you think? My post wasn't responding to your post. (At least not yours in particular.) I would have thought the lack of quotes would indicate that...

D'oh!

I thought you were responding to the post directly over your post.

My bad.

In that case, I would agree that "What makes something oldschool" and "What makes it newschool" are worthwhile questions.

I just don't agree that there needs to be a cutoff. Some things are both. For example. I would argue that 4e contains elements of both, even though it is more NS than OS. RCFG contains elements of both, but is more OS than NS.

I think we'd need to define OS/NS in terms of both rules elements and playstyle. While these things may feed each other, doing so makes "playing OS in a NS way" or "playing NS in an OS way" easier to comprehend.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think this is pushing off the wrong direction. Old school/new school, as I see it, is more of a spectrum. Factors push in one direction, other factors push in the other, and the demarcation line between the two is a shadowy blending of the two and not some hard and fast line. Nevertheless, there are differences between comparable components. That's the point of saying something is old school vs new school.

When you add the "vs" in it, unless you are talking about specific elements (and even then I would say "rather than" instead of "vs") I am forced to agree with Umbran. I think it is a mistake to believe in OS/NS in the "vs" sense -- they are not diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive.

(IOW, I believe that OS and NS have meaning as "apples and oranges" but not "black and white", regardless or how many shades of grey you care to introduce. Obvious exceptions, like "ascending vs. descending AC" are, of course, exceptions to this general parameter.)


RC

 

[Melan]

I'm afraid I have to disagree, for three reasons.

1. The nostalgia claim hasn't been debunked so much as its been attacked as unethical and insulting. There is no logical connection between "I find that insulting" and "that is incorrect."

There is a relation between unethicality and falseness. The nostalgia argument implies false consciousness; an attraction to old games only based on an emotional attachment to a falsified past. While I don't discount that people may feel nostalgic for the games they played when they were in their teens, the argument becomes false because people (even these same nostalgic people) may have rational reasons for playing the games the way they do. Even the simplest of them, comfort, transcends nostalgia; aesthetic preference, interest in a certain interpretation of old-school gaming (e.g. "rules light" or "player skill-based") or just attraction to the creativity of the scene that surrounds old-school may be just as, or much more relevant.

2. I feel a nostalgic connection to my olden days with the Rules Cyclopedia. It is possible that I am a statistically anomalous freak of nature, but I have little reason to believe this to be likely.

Possible. I also feel nostalgic for the odd combination of 2e and Photocopied AD&D (a very popular version in early 1990s Hungary) I started with. However, I am happy to keep that as a pleasant memory, and play a different form of old - one that was often new to me when I got to know it, and elements of which date back to a period before I was born.

3. One of the more common complaints about retro clones is that they often include older game mechanics that are not actually optimum for what they are intended to accomplish. I tend to agree with this complaint. It seems at times that newer, better ways of accomplishing the same things have been developed, but not always adopted by the retro clone community. This would be most easily explained by an emotional connection to the trappings of older games.

The error is made when games are considered analogous to technology and thus subject to technological progress (or "evolution"), which they are not. Game mechanics - task resolution systems and pure numerical components - are technology, and can be optimised. Addition is inherently, although not overwhelmingly easier than substraction, and therefore mechanics that involve one over the other can be considered more and less progressive.

However, when we enter the broader sphere of rules as an integrated system of mechanics, typical game procedures and assumptions about play, the analogy is already invalid. Is a rule system that emphasises abstract combat less or more evolved than one that identifies specific attack types? Is random character generation less or more advanced than point-buy? Says who? "Professional game designers" have been quick to declare this or that solution to be the way of evolution and to be "more fun" - 3e's "monster simulation" stat blocks were touted as superior to AD&D's by designer rhetoric; in 4e, it is argued just as vehemently that the tradeoff in simulation vs. playability was not worth it, and consequently, stats were scaled back in the new game. These decisions may no longer be objectively measured. At best, they may be derived from market research, but that's not an objective science (for various reasons; some methodological, some related to the inner culture of companies that resort to market research); usually, they are pure subjectivity dressed up in rhetorical falsehood like "it is more fun that way" or "we have made sure to evolve and advance the game for our dear, dear customers".

That is only the level of the rules: you still have cultures of play, the design aesthetic that influences the game, literary and other antecedents (do I take Leiber or do I take Rowling?)... Here, the technological argument becomes entirely irrelevant; or what is a lot worse, misleading.

All in all, what you may perceive as suboptimal could as well be a legitimate choice based on rationally identified preferences. One of those sets of preferences (and I am simplifying here, since old-school is itself composed of sometimes competing or contradictory preferences) is old-school gaming.

Additionally, when the question is whether retro games are overrated, the nature of people's attachment to them is germane. In fact, it is the entire subject matter.

And I will note that "overrated" is a poor term to start a conversation over, as it combines vagueness with conotations of snobbish dismissal.

 

[Melan]

I'd go about a year earlier to here as the end of the old school. It's not necessarily the beginning of the "new school." I'm a believer that there is one or more "mid schools."

See my post here for a explanation of why I consider I6 old-school.