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

[Doug McCrae]

Bear in mind that the OSR, and the OS definition associated with it, comes primarily from a D&D perspective.

What's the definition?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think RQ comes in for more flak than Traveller on that count partly because it is more often (if inaccurately) seen as a "D&D wannabe", and partly because more D&Ders are ignorant of it and imagine it to be more like 3E than it really is.

I see RQ as being pretty similar to 3e. Both systems are strongly simulationist. RQ is to d100 what 3e is to d20. Unified system - combat, skills and everything else use the same mechanic. All characters, including monsters, built the same way. I loved that feature when I first saw it. Like 3e, RQ is a bit too complex, I always felt Call of Cthulhu was a better expression of the Chaosium system.

Unlike D&D, it lacks classes and levels so that's a big difference.

 

[Remathilis]

If you use products from the OSR in your game -- whatever it is -- then I would call that playing a part in the OSR! The old game books themselves are obviously not products of the "renaissance", but people dusting them off to play may be. Products of WotC are products of WotC. Some people might conceive of the OSR primarily (or wholly?) in terms of initiatives by hobbyists, but I don't know. It's certainly possible for something to have some OS design elements without being seen by designer or users as part of the OSR.

So if I'm reading that right, system doesn't matter, as long as you're playing in an "old school manner". Except when, of course, it does matter.

 

[ggroy]

I suppose if "old school" is based on one's experiences back in youth, then it would be quite subjective. If this is the case, then my version of "old school" would be quite radically different from many others.

Many years ago when I first played a real game of 1E AD&D, the DM was an older guy who was more of an experienced gamer than us. He had a "strange" set of house rules at the time for combat, which seemed a lot more "natural" to us than using the combat tables in the 1E DM guide.

Essentially for each "attack roll" whether melee or ranged, the target would do a corresponding "defense roll". This "defense roll" typically involved rolling a d20 and adding a modifier of 10-AC and one's constitution bonus for a melee attack or one's dexterity bonus for a ranged attack. A hit occured whenever the "attack roll" was greater than or equal to the "defense roll".

A "defense roll" against a magical attack was handled on a case by case basis. Though frequently the "defense roll" against magic typically involved rolling a d20 and adding one's wisdom bonus, depending on the particular spell. Some spells didn't have any "defense roll" such as magic missile. If the target was another magic user, the DM allowed the target to do a "counter spell" which typically involved determining the spell cast (ie. intelligence check by rolling under or equal to one's INT score) and then casting the same spell to cancel it out if one knows the spell. The GM also modified the intelligence check of determining the attacker's spell by subtracting the level of the attacking magic user, which made it harder to determine higher level spells.

 

[Ariosto]

Unlike D&D, [RQ] lacks classes and levels so that's a big difference.

It also lacks skill points and DCs. There's a really big difference from 3E in the role skill ratings play in the game. If you're using the thief class and weapon proficiencies in AD&D, then nearly all the skills on the RQ2 character sheet have AD&D equivalents (which may not be called "skills"). The whole relationship among players, GM and rules is much more like that in old D&D (or Traveller) than like that in 3E.

What's the definition?

First, what it's not is something rigid like the specification of Universal Serial Bus. It's more like the definition of a literary genre by the fans.

Basically, a lot of folks got fed up with 3E and found relief in older D&D editions. The objective similarities among all those made it easy for them to communicate with each other about their games. So, there was a start: old D&D is "old school" and 3E is not. The consensus is that 4E also is not.

That's the most important definition; this is overwhelmingly a D&D family affair. The significance comes from WotC's decision to replace the old games with 3E, while keeping the rights to them so that they remained out of print.

However, people found that there were other overlaps in their game preferences. Some started to analyze the phenomenon, looking to identify approaches to play and design that stood out as notable.

 

[Nellisir]

What's been made clear to me today, in a number of boards, by a number of people, is that many of the people who feel compelled to trumpet the virtue of imagination over rules cannot actually imagine having fun except under their particular rules.

So who has a poorer imagination - you, who feel trapped, constrained, and bound by The Rules, or me, who has happily run the same setting under 5 different rulesets without blinking and without changing the tone of the setting?

Now back to your regularly scheduled stupid edition war.

 

[Ariosto]

So if I'm reading that right, system doesn't matter, as long as you're playing in an "old school manner". Except when, of course, it does matter.

You're reading that wrong.

 

[ggroy]

No, but the addition of skill ratings is by itself regarded skeptically in the OSR. I think RQ comes in for more flak than Traveller on that count partly because it is more often (if inaccurately) seen as a "D&D wannabe", and partly because more D&Ders are ignorant of it and imagine it to be more like 3E than it really is. (The new Mongoose version is another matter.)

Boot Hill and Top Secret are established as OS, and they use percentile rolls for most things.

I use to play Top Secret a lot. Never played Boot Hill.

In my D&D and AD&D games back in the day, the DMs frequently houseruled a primitive skills system which typically involved rolling a d20 less than or equal to a particular character stat (such as intelligence, charisma, etc ...) for a success. The DM would secretly modify the particular (DC) number for success, depending on the situation in question.

 

[Remathilis]

Basically, a lot of folks got fed up with 3E and found relief in older D&D editions. The objective similarities among all those made it easy for them to communicate with each other about their games. So, there was a start: old D&D is "old school" and 3E is not. The consensus is that 4E also is not.
That's the most important definition; this is overwhelmingly a D&D family affair. The significance comes from WotC's decision to replace the old games with 3E, while keeping the rights to them so that they remained out of print.

So the defining quality of Old School Gaming/Old School Renaissance is that it's NOT 3e/4e.

Got it.

 

[Ariosto]

Ggroy, I think that was pretty much the intent of the optional skills in the D&D Gazetteer series, late 1E AD&D and 2E AD&D. It's quite different from the very systematic approach in 3E and 4E.