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

[Aus_Snow]

Some people actually read WOTC blogs and interviews of their employees, etc.... when they were marketing/preparing the customer base to convert to the new edition.

I actually did, so I can play! Neither ignorant nor naive? Nay, for I am a marvel of geekdom! Arr.

What I read a lot of was how bad 3e is, in comparison with 4e. Interestingly, this seems to have flowed on to, or coincided with, a very large (or at least vocal) group of 4e players on forums. Just as was the case with 2e, when 3e came around. 2e was quite the thing to hate on. Now, 3e.

Nothing about actual old school games, or 'old games' (as I seem to recall the line went).

But links are certainly welcome.

 

[Remathilis]

Some people actually read WOTC blogs and interviews of their employees, etc.... when they were marketing/preparing the customer base to convert to the new edition.

WotC Ad Copy:

"Say! Why don't you check out our new fourth edition! Check out its encounter-building system. See? It builds encounters faster & easier than before! Not that there was anything WRONG with our old methods of encounter building. In fact, you can still USE them if you want. You can use whatever you want of our old systems because they're every bit as good as our NEW system! Try 4e today!"

 

[Mikaze]

Well there was "Unnecessary symmetry, ugly backstory, yaddayadda" too now.

Personally I'm with the crowd that says "old school" shouldn't be too strongly defined because it simply can't. Videogamers can't agree on what old-school is exactly, RPGers sure as hell aren't going to be able too.

Hell, I'm not sure hip-hop's definition is still what it was five years ago.

 

[Remathilis]

Personally, I have to put my money with the Green Dragon blog: the old-school Renaissance ALREADY is excluding certain elements of the D&D back-catalog and focusing on others.

Where is the BECMI/Rule Cyclopedia Retro-clone? There isn't one. There are two Mentzer and B/X clones, but none that have elf-as-class, law/neu/chaos alignments or maxed leveling at 36.

Where is the Second Edition Retro-clone? Oh, right. "Old school" players would rather forget second edition even happened. AD&D 1e gets all sorts of fond memories and even its own clone (OSRIC) but 2e is regarded as an abomination; too recent to be "old school", to archaic to be "new school."

Currently, the "old school" Renaissance mostly consists of people who gamed during the late 70's and early 80's trying to recapture the games of that era. The mood, tone, style, and even artwork and typesetting evokes the feeling of those pre-1984 gaming, and lets everything else go hang. It comes off sounding like the "rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia" because it ignores (willfully or otherwise) any and all innovations for the past 15 years.

Well, it tries. I wonder how many people (to use the blog's example) re-rolls hp every day? How many "borrow" spells and classes and races from later editions? Heck, nearly every retro-clone has an option to "ascend" AC, a D&D innovation that didn't see official production until 2000.

Now, if you enjoy that sort of game, more power to you. I reject the notion that OD&D, 1e, or a derived retro-clone is any more "pure" than 2e, Pathfinder, or 4e.

 

[Ariosto]

Nah. You'll never see anyone here at Enworld knocking any aspect of old-school play. And you'll never see anyone anywhere holding up AD&D in particular as a model of bad design, or World of Darkness as the light that led RPGs out of the dark age. Nope, there's no hint of superiority at all in the drumbeat of dismissal.

Or rather, the prejudices go down easy if one happens to share them. Maybe even easier when sugar coated with the sorts of false claims that might wear thin if reason were admissible. Instead, it must be dismissed with Bulverism. Any positive statement concerning an "old school" design is nothing but silly "nostalgia", and therefore wrong.

When the shoe is on the foot of someone kicking it, the minority can be identified. Yet it is somehow improper for the minority to claim its own identity.

 

[Ariosto]

Where is ...

On the way. Of course, if you so passionately desire this or that then you can go ahead and do the work to make it yourself. Whence this sense of entitlement to have someone else deliver x, y, and z YESTERDAY?.

It comes off sounding like the "rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia" because it ignores (willfully or otherwise) any and all innovations for the past 15 years.

No; it rejects many innovations in the context of certain games.

 

[Ariosto]

The predicate to creating a 2E retro-clone, obviously, is acknowledging that it is indeed not "just the same as" 1E.

Such acknowledgment, without equating difference with some absolute standard of superiority and inferiority, is all the "old school" asks -- and what the "new school" too often begrudges.

 

[mearls]

D&D is such a subjective, personal thing that trying to push everyone's experience with it into a single box is a waste of time.

To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.

The specific mechanics behind the game and its setting are irrelevant. A simpler game does make sense, since the DM can pretty much do whatever he wants, but it is by no means a necessity.

I imagine that some people might agree with that, while others would completely disagree. The games *you* played define what old school means to you. It's a mistake to assume that there's some sort of platonic ideal of what gaming in any era was or is supposed to be. The beauty of gaming is that we all do our own thing.

I think there are a lot of parallels between the old school movement and the indie movement. Both started around what I see as fairly simple concepts. The indie movement eventually gathered a lot of baggage that hampered its growth, a sort of "us vs. them" vibe that turned away people. It'd be a pity to see the same thing happen again.

 

[Treebore]

You know what else "old school" is? Using 10 foot poles to check the ground in front of you for pit traps and other dangers.

Using flour to throw in the air to reveal any invisible opponents nearby.

Using a table to pin goblins against the wall.

Picking up a table and slamming it over your opponents head.

Actually NOT finding a trap until you set it off.

Not finding secret doors because they are so finely crafted you simply are not good enough to find it. Yet.

Drawing out the map as you go to see if you get it right.

Having a vorpal sword or staff of the Magi, not because its appropriate for your level, but because ITS SO COOL!!

Thats the old school I like.

 

[Mark]

To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.

The specific mechanics behind the game and its setting are irrelevant. A simpler game does make sense, since the DM can pretty much do whatever he wants, but it is by no means a necessity.

I imagine that some people might agree with that, while others would completely disagree.

That is strange because the games we played in the mid-Seventies were more like what some now call sandbox games where the DM created as large a world as time permitted and the players were free to explore it as their own narrative unfolded. The players would be asked, generally, what their long(er)term intentions might be so that the DM could create as many options along those lines but the choices were fairly wide and any hint of railroading was unwelcome. All the players knew the mechanics (there were few in the early days) as well as the DM and most took their turn behind the screen. It's pretty much the same way my current group plays the game when I am behind the screen nowadays.