My Response to the Grognardia Essay "More Than a Feeling"

[Desdichado]

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that system matters. That much, anyway.

That said, I still love to tinker with systems to get them to do what I want better. But I've found that I can start with a completely different chassis and still get more or less the same play experience, once I tinker a little bit.

/tangent

 

[Intense_Interest]

...are found in books. Written by people. With authorial voices. So they imply things.

The Author has been Dead for a long, long time now. WoD Mage is neither superhero beat-em-up, crypto-subjectivist punk, or internal politics & metaplot simulator. Elements of each are included at the detriment of no separate conclusion.

But what's really at issue here is not whether nostaliga or emotion are playing a part. Obviously they are. Duh. What matters, and this was the essence of the Grognardia post, is that older RPGs have objectively different qualties from newer RPGs. This should not be a controversial statement, but apparently it is.

Yeah, that's probably the thing here. (Subjective conclusions italicized below)

I know that there are objectively different qualities in editions of D&D that can be game-changing enough with your preferred style so much so that you actively choose a system based on it. 3rd level spell Flight can die in a fire along with every other encounter-skip spell like it. So when one chooses a system among the "Old School Revival", it is based on system assumptions and internal preferences along with nostalgia and "feel".

Yet save for the soft claim of "rules light", which I don't think works with my view of Turn Undead and Weapon Speed tables, along with the similar-yet-excluded example of 2E Hobo speaks of, the games among the "Old School Revival" do not have a singular philosophy.

What the games do have in common, however, is the "grognard" subculture of bloggers/gamers and the game designers that serve them, and the rapid communication between them available because of the Internet. This cause and effect relation, found only in the 4E release->OSR rather than the 3E release->OSR, implies that while the game system assumptions that define the "old school" are *ahem* old and pre-existent, they are not the cause of the change.

Unless one wishes to tie Piazo's Pathfinder into to the "Old School Revival" as well and in so doing defy categorization of the meaning "Old School" other than pre-extant gaming, at which point we're calling the OSR a beast fed on nostalgia and bitterness.

 

[Ariosto]

The games among the "Old School Revival" do not have a singular philosophy.

If you're referring to pre-2E D&D, I think the evidence is soundly against that claim. In any case, subscription to "a singular philosophy" is hardly necessary to an artistic school! This is not primarily a case of people coming up with a category a priori and then looking for (or making) specimens to fill it. It is primarily a case of noticing that affinities have already arisen, and then looking at what the members have in common.

There is not a universal mutual antipathy in tastes between the "new school" of D&D and the old, because there are people of eclectic tastes. I think it is clear, though, that a very strong preference for one or the the other is most common.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think it is clear, though, that a very strong preference for one or the the other is most common.

Nah, that's just the internet. It's a filthy liar and it tends to polarise.

 

[Remathilis]

What the games do have in common, however, is the "grognard" subculture of bloggers/gamers and the game designers that serve them, and the rapid communication between them available because of the Internet. This cause and effect relation, found only in the 4E release->OSR rather than the 3E release->OSR, implies that while the game system assumptions that define the "old school" are *ahem* old and pre-existent, they are not the cause of the change.

Unless one wishes to tie Piazo's Pathfinder into to the "Old School Revival" as well and in so doing defy categorization of the meaning "Old School" other than pre-extant gaming, at which point we're calling the OSR a beast fed on nostalgia and bitterness.

And we have a winner.

First off, how "Old" does an OS game have to be? 1970's is a given. What about games made int the 80's? Or the 90's? (if not, you exclude BECMI and 2e). Is the only qualifier being OOP? (Which technically allows 3.5 to be OSR).

Secondly, how "lite" is rules lite? Are we talking core rules only or supplements too? (AD&D and OD&D get remarkably complex when you factor in supplements).

Third, how do we define lite? 4e is lighter than 3e, not as light as OD&D, but is it lighter than 2e? Than 2e + Skills & Powers?

Fourth, what about retro-inspired (Hackmaster, C&C, BFRPG) and retro-clones (OSRIC, LL)? The strictly break the age requirement, so what do we judge them on? Closeness to original material? Liteness? (if so, does True d20 count?) Something else? (see below).

Lastly, What qualities (other than rule density and age) can lump these games together? Are we looking for specific rules (thac0, save vs spell), or tone (the 1e tone is vastly different than 2e's tone, but striking similar to 3e's)? Is it authorship (Only games penned by Gygax himself)?

What gets included in the "OSR" cannon? Until these traits are defined, it IS just a feeling, and that feeling will differ from poster to poster, board to board, DM to DM. The individual player/DM might have reasons beyond "nostalgia" to play (easy of play/prep, tone, etc) but the movement as a whole is nostalgic unless you can define what an OS game IS.

 

[Ariosto]

Remathilis, was it not you who posted a "new school manifesto" in contrast to the list of "old school" preferences and design elements I posted?

This line of argument looks to me like a straw man. People see things in common among one group of games that they find lacking in another group. The distinction seems useful enough to me, and diversity among members of a group is what makes them distinct members! The gambit on the dismissers' part seems to be to push for a requirement of identity rather than similarity. Should that hold for mice and men as well?

There's a neat Catch-22 in that "old-schoolers" get blasted for trying to define OS, and blasted for being "just nostalgic" when they don't. Rinse and repeat.

The catch on the other side is so depriving the term of meaning that you can't claim your favorite newfangled game is "old school" regardless of how you play it or how it "feels" to you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you are a proponent of 4e (or any other game system where you need to purchase the rules), I would say that your purchase (perhaps ongoing purchase, esp. in the case of the 4e commercial set-up) demonstrates not only proof that system does matter to you (regardless of claiming otherwise), but that system matters to you at least to the value of the (perhaps ongoing) purchase price.

Otherwise, why not play a free game, if the system is irrelevant?


RC

 

[rounser]

Otherwise, why not play a free game, if the system is irrelevant?

Why not indeed!? Dungeon Squad! for everybody!

Dagnabbit, no leveling...but hey, rules don't matter apparently! Anybody want to play a Monopoly Mystara campaign? Birthright Bingo? Roulette Ravenloft? Texas Horde-em Poker?

Reductio ad absurdum...for great justice!

 

[Desdichado]

Otherwise, why not play a free game, if the system is irrelevant?

Was that directed at me? I think I'm the only one who said that system doesn't matter that much. And I'm not a proponent of 4e, nor someone who's bought it.

That answer is: who says I don't? The Window is one of my favorite games, and I use it a fair amount.

By the way, it's a heck of a lot rules-liter than any version of D&D, even core rulebook only OD&D (1974). And more flexible at the same time. Maybe it's Old School?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Reductio ad absurdum...for great justice!

There is actually no reductio at all, because the claim is that system doesn't matter, specifically between those games being called old school (many of which are available for free) and modern games, such as 4e.

Literally, if system doesn't matter between these offerings, and even one of these offerings is known to be free, perforce the free game would be the one everyone played.

And yet....not.

It is (perhaps) especially telling that it is the people paying through the nose who are trying to claim that system doesn't matter, while demonstrating that it does to them in an ongoing manner.


RC



EDIT: And no, Hobo, that wasn't directed at you, nor are you the only person making a claim that system doesn't matter. You are not a lone voice in the wilderness. Sorry.

EDIT to the EDIT: Though it is nice to see you promoting The Window, where maybe you are a lone voice in the wilderness. I'll have to check it out.


RC