• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Old School Gaming vs. New School

mmadsen

First Post
Modern RPGers probably think that the debate between rules-heavy new-school games and rules-light old-school games is a new debate, but it goes back centuries -- to the evolution of early wargames (or Kriegsspiel) used to train German military officers:
Early recreational wargames were rather abstract and unrealistic affairs, usually based upon some variant of chess. During the nineteenth century, however, wargames tended to develop a more realistic format, largely as a result of the renewed military interest caused by the Napoleonic Wars themselves. Thinking officers were then starting to experiment with various ways of representing battles in miniature; and in Prussia this developed to a very advanced stage indeed. The military kriegspiel gradually became a recognized means of officer training, and later even evolved into an aid for strategic planning.

The nineteenth-century Prussian game started life with a rigid structure and copious formal rules. The two sides were each placed in a separate room with a model of the terrain or a map. The umpires moved from one room to another collecting orders from the players, and then retired to a third room to consult the rules and find the results of combat. A great deal of their time was consumed in leafing through voluminous sets of rules, consulting tables and giving rulings on fine legal points. By about 1870, however, this rigid system was starting to be thought rather clumsy and time-consuming. Quite apart from the many defects and loopholes in the rules themselves, it reduced the umpires, who were often very senior officers, to the role of mere clerks and office boys. clearly, such a state of affairs was intolerable.

It was General von verdy du Vernois who finally broke with this system, and abolished the rule book altogether. His approach to the wargame was the free kriegspiel, in which the umpire had a totally free hand to decide the result of moves and combats. He did not do this according to any set of written rules, but just on his own military knowledge and experience. He would collect the players' moves in exactly the same way as before; but he would then simply give a considered professional opinion on the outcome. This speeded up the game a very great deal, and ensured that there was always a well thought-out reason for everything that happened. This was a great help in the debrief after the game, and it allowed players to learn by their mistakes very quickly.

The free kriegspiel using maps can offer many advantages for modern wargamers provided that the umpire has a reasonable background in wargaming, and a bit of common sense. If this condition is met, the game immediately becomes faster and less pedantic than if it had been tied down to a set of rules. The umpire can always think of more factors to incorporate in his decisions than could ever be true in a formal or rigid game. He can therefore spread a greater atmosphere of realism about the game.​
Rather than simply asking the umpire/DM to declare the outcome, a modern free Kriegsspiel has him declare potential outcomes before rolling a die:
When the umpire has all relevant information at his disposal, he ought to be able to give an informed opinion on the probabilities of the result. He will not simply say something like 'The French infantry hassuccessfully stormed the hill', but will quote possibilities, such as: 'The French have a 50% chance of storming the hill successfully; a 30% chance of capturing half of it, while disputing the rest; and a 20% chance of being totally repulsed. High scores favour the French'. It is important that the umpire is as specific as possible with these figures, as this forces him to consider all the factors involved in the combat and to think through the full implications of his decision. He must also be clear whether a high dice roll will be good or bad for the attacker, i.e., whether the top 50% (a die roll of 5-9) or the bottom 50% (a roll of 0-4) will mean the hill has been carried. In this case he has stated that the high score will be good for the attacker.​
 

log in or register to remove this ad

When I build my army, I want to know exactly how the rules will work. Not some arbitrary decision by some desk jockey officer that could not command his way out of a paper bag. Plus, I am pissed that they took out Professions. I mean, if I want my army to have better armor and look better on the field, then why can't I invest a few build points these areas? Sure, I can hand wave it, but it lessens my overall gaming experience. And do not get me started on the elimination of some of the (army) alignments! :p

This reminds me of the Battle of Midway. The Japanese had wargamed it out beforehand. One of the referees indicated that the US would sink a number of Japanese carriers in the operation and result in high chance of overall defeat. A senior referee overturned the ruling and gave a much rosier outcome. They should have listen to the original referee...
 

This reminds me of the Battle of Midway. The Japanese had wargamed it out beforehand. One of the referees indicated that the US would sink a number of Japanese carriers in the operation and result in high chance of overall defeat. A senior referee overturned the ruling and gave a much rosier outcome. They should have listen to the original referee...

The US Navy High Command also has a track record of overturning wargame results they don't like. I remember reading on a defense site about a wargamed US vs 'Iran' conflict in the Persian Gulf. The US General commanding the 'Iranian' forces (mostly torpedo boats & explosive-laden speedboats) launched a massive attack which successfully sunk all the US carriers and destroyed the US fleet; the high command ordered the US carriers 'refloated' so the exercise could continue as planned.

Unlike the Midway example, the US Fleet has stayed well off from the Iranian coast ever since, though. :D
 

Very interesting.

I think the rules debate comes down to the player, some like the freedom (I sure do) while some like every variable accounted for in the rules.

And as a stunt I once played a game of Kriegspiel, very fun, sure I won, but the game lasted 4 weeks, sure it was an entire military campaign, but proving that it is impossible for the US to be invaded was fun...

this included the nuclear options and use of modern defenses I was, however, given the option of an insurgency...needless to say, the 2nd amendment right is a great thing, embrace the firearm, China can send an army as large as our population, but as soon as they hit the great plains, their numbers turn against them. It turned into trench warfare and yeah, very VERY fun game, enjoyed it quite a bit.

**Note it was a 'modern' kriegspiel that involved not a chess board but a map of the US as well as the world. Pieces moved as realistically as possible (infantry moved different than armored units and they all moved differently to air units)
 

If you look back at old-school D&D, 90 percent of the game fit this "free" model: you described what you did, the DM threw a die -- any die, really -- and if it came up high, something reasonably good happened, and if it came up low, something reasonably bad happened.

Only when you entered combat did the game shift to a "rigid" model -- which many DMs tried to work around, really, to make the combat more interesting, more realistic (or plausible), a better fit for the situation, etc.

Things got ugly along the intersection of these two styles:

PC: I reach into the hole in the wall and grab the gemstone.
DM: An axe comes down and chops off your hand!
PC: But I have 24 hit points left!​

I can easily imagine exploring the Caves of Chaos, free-style, where the PCs and monsters still have some numbers associated with them, but instead of tracking bonuses and remaining hit points, the DM makes a quick judgment call, rolls a d20, and calls out reasonable outcomes that fit the situation: you block the ogre's club with your shield, which shatters under the impact; the evil high priest's flaming sword chops off your hand and cauterizes the wound, "Join me!" he says; as you dodge the orcs out-flanking you from either side, they collide and drop in a heap; etc.
 

Rather than simply asking the umpire/DM to declare the outcome, a modern free Kriegsspiel has him declare potential outcomes before rolling a die:

The above sounds more like postmodern RPG game design. Earlier games were rules-heavy typically, which can be seen from the number of rulebooks alone and need for game scenarios. These were very much memory and strategy games.
 

The above sounds more like postmodern RPG game design. Earlier games were rules-heavy typically, which can be seen from the number of rulebooks alone and need for game scenarios. These were very much memory and strategy games.
I'm not sure what you mean, howandwhy99. Early versions of D&D were, as I said before, an odd mix of virtually rules-free and very rigid. Over time, the game has defined more and more elements and moved them into the rigid sphere. (It has also shed a few unpopular restrictions, like demi-human level-limits, etc.)

When you say, "These were very much memory and strategy games," to what are you referring?
 

An interesting thing to note is that the reason they went freeform was because the people who were running the game were very experienced military commanders.

If the game is being run by a person without a vast pool of experience to draw upon, then maybe they would benefit from having some rules?
 

An interesting thing to note is that the reason they went freeform was because the people who were running the game were very experienced military commanders.

If the game is being run by a person without a vast pool of experience to draw upon, then maybe they would benefit from having some rules?
Absolutely,a free-style game would be a bad fit for a referee who doesn't know much about whatever's being simulated. I don't think it would take many ground-rules to get, say, a Basic D&D free-style game going, but it would require some -- and ideally a more flexible set of combat rules, too.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top