Starting "Old SChool" gaming

Don't go out of your way trying to get experience with an old school style game before you run it. Download and read through a couple of the free retro-clones and start running. Those old style games are simple enough to be run without so much preparation. If you already have experience with 3.5 and all its associated complexities, then running S&W or LL won't be a problem. A lot of the fun we had back in the early days was because we just started playing without worrying about doing it "right" or "wrong" including the DM. Keep in mind that these rulesets are a framework on which you can weave the tapestry of your desired game. There are a lot of things the rules won't cover and that is by design. Have fun. :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Based on that primer, a Pbp would be difficult to run. The shortcuts that "modern" systems enables would greatly benefit a Pbp moreso than a face-to-face. If you think it's time consuming to search a room in face to face gaming the way his example shows (for example) then it would take literally weeks to do in a Pbp.

That said; while the advice in the primer is good advice, the dichotomy it sets up between old school and modern is often pretty false, and the "problems" that it describes with "modern games" are often completely strawman problems. And if you look at at gaming outside of the D&D specific mileu, a lot of what it says would seem completely backwards; many non-D&Ders would say that the "modern" problems it describes are problems specific to D&D (of older vintage, even!) and that "modern" games go a completely different direction entirely.

Then again, maybe I'm just a "modern" gamer who plays with a bit of an "old school" paradigm; but in my experience there's nothing particularly old school about the advice. It's good advice... I'm not trying to knock it on that front... it's just not endemic to "old school gaming."

If all that rambling makes sense.
 

Kudos, HandofMystra!

I second (or fifth, or sixth) the endorsements for Swords & Wizardry, its an excellent starting point to get into (or even back into) old-school gaming. S&W is really bare bones D&D and lets you get into the game at a pace that really emphasizes the elements of old-school play detailed in the Primer.

From S&W its really easy to slowly develop it into your own custom-made houseruled game (as its often easier to add to a ruleset than take away from it). Or, if you want to explore retros with incrementally more complexity, you can move on to Labyrinth Lord or even higher with OSRIC. Conversely, if you wants things even simpler than S&W, you can go with S&W Whitebox or Microlite74.

S&W also has the advantage of having Chgowiz's excellent S&W Quickstart and Reference Sheets available, simple, highly useful quality stuff for the beginning or experienced old-school gamer.

There's also a wealth of info and goodies to be found in the old-school blogosphere. Good places to start include Grognardia, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Jeff's Gameblog, and my own humble offering, Beyond the Black Gate (linked in my sig).

Happy Gaming!:)
 

That said; while the advice in the primer is good advice, the dichotomy it sets up between old school and modern is often pretty false, and the "problems" that it describes with "modern games" are often completely strawman problems. And if you look at at gaming outside of the D&D specific mileu, a lot of what it says would seem completely backwards; many non-D&Ders would say that the "modern" problems it describes are problems specific to D&D (of older vintage, even!) and that "modern" games go a completely different direction entirely.

I only skimmed the first few pages, but based on that I would say that "modern" and "old school" as presented in the primer define a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum is rigid adherence to the rules as written, never venturing beyond them. At the other end is total freeform, completely ignoring the rules and making everything up as you go. Between those endpoints, there is a wide range of play styles.

That said, certain editions lend themselves to one style, others to another. OD&D and BECMI pretty much required you to play on what we today consider the freeform end; the rules were simply not extensive enough to support "by-the-book" play very well. 1E, 2E, and especially 3E moved away from that, shifting the center of mass steadily further toward the rules-heavy end.

Depending on whom you talk to, 4E either continues or reverses this trend. Those who argue it continues the trend point to the extensive array of powers and a sense that 4E puts rules ahead of game-world logic. Those who argue it reverses the trend point to the move away from the "unified mechanics" approach of 3E, the less all-encompassing ruleset, and the efforts to support stunts and other free-form maneuvers.
 
Last edited:

You know, I respect Matt Finch as an author of retro-clones, but I'm afraid his Old School Primer is only so much buncombe. Nothing about the two opposed play-styles described therein have anything at all to do with old vs. new school. To an extent, yes, he's setting up a dichotomy between using die rolls to adjudicate results and simply having the DM make a decision, but it swings a little wide of the mark to my way of thinking.

If I were running D&D 3rd edition, there would be nothing at all keeping me from allowing characters to "automatically" find secret doors and treasure troves in the event that their players described specifically how and where they search for them. Likewise, running OD&D, nothing is stopping me from handling the entire searching process with one fell Wisdom check for everybody. Neither of these things is old school or new school. They are features of the DM's play style and decision making process.

Old school and new school, rather, are things inherent to the game system; not contingent on the DM and players sitting down to play the game.

The sharpest divide between "old" and "modern" gaming is simply this: how detailed to the rules make a character? How different is one character from another in game-mechanical terms?

In an old-school game, character's aren't built; they're generated (by rolling dice), after which they grow organically along a more-or-less predetermined path. Two characters with the same class and level will look quite like each other, from a game-rules perspective, for most of the course of the game. If you strip away such variables as spells known and magical equipment, the only thing that differentiates one fighter from another, or even one magic-user from another, is how the player chooses to describe the character -- something that goes quite beyond the rules of any RPG, no matter how detailed.

Conversely, in a new school game, the order of the day is player customization and having features relevant to the game rules themselves actually representing how the player wants to describe his character. The player can arrange his stats or buy them with points, and then things like skills, feats, and powers are selected to match the player's vision of his character.

An "old school" fighter has nothing but his six ability scores and maybe a list of weapon proficiencies; if this character is to be a "gladiator" or a "knight" or a "swashbuckler", it all falls on how the player equips and describes the character. A "new school" fighter would rather have feats and such which are appropriate to the character concept, and as the player levels up, more features are built on this to further customize the character.

THAT is the heart of old vs. new school. Nothing more.
 

I only skimmed the first few pages, but based on that I would say that "modern" and "old school" as presented in the primer define a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum is rigid adherence to the rules as written, never venturing beyond them. At the other end is total freeform, completely ignoring the rules and making everything up as you go. Between those endpoints, there is a wide range of play styles.
Yes, I realize that, but my point is that labeling either endpoint on that spectrum "old school" or "new school" is false. Also, as a guy who wandered as a prodigal son through the latte-set gamer crowd for quite some time in the 90s, I find it odd that the primer specifically espouses as "old school" concepts that many anti-D&Ders would rather see as reactions in the hobby overall against D&D. It's especially ironic that they're now being appropriated by the old school D&D movement as integral to the playstyle.
 

If I were running D&D 3rd edition, there would be nothing at all keeping me from allowing characters to "automatically" find secret doors and treasure troves in the event that their players described specifically how and where they search for them. Likewise, running OD&D, nothing is stopping me from handling the entire searching process with one fell Wisdom check for everybody. Neither of these things is old school or new school. They are features of the DM's play style and decision making process.

The difference here is that your 3rd Ed game experience would be realized by ignoring written rules whereas your OD&D game would involve creating rules to suit your style. ;)
 


For "old school" all the ones mentioned have a lot to offer, so read them over. They all have free PDF versions available, so that isn't hard to do.

Personally, if I were to go full old school I would go BFRPG or Labyrinth Lord.

You may also want to check out "new" old school flavor games such as the new Hackmaster or Castles and Crusades.

A large part of the reason I own print copies of these "old school" games is because I use Castles and Crusades, so I can house rule everything and anything I like from any version, including house rules I have from 3E and 4E D&D, and the system holds up well.

Basic Fantasy RPG fits my tastes most closely, though. Labyrinth Lord is a very close second.

Swords and Wizardry is also good, but I would have to significantly rewrite the spell lists to be happier with it. Plus I really hate the no spells at first level thing, so that is one of the first things I would get rid of. Thats probably because I started playing with 1E, and then went back to the little brown books, then went to Basic D&D. So to me spellcasters know how to cast spells immediately, not at second level.

However, all the systems I mention hold up well to house ruling, so anything you don't like is easily fixable, and unlike with 3E and 4E, you won't have a string of effects across the board effecting strings of various skills/feats/powers.

Have fun.
 

The difference here is that your 3rd Ed game experience would be realized by ignoring written rules whereas your OD&D game would involve creating rules to suit your style.
Are you suggesting that poking a trap door with a 10' pole in a D&D3 game would not spring the trap door open like it would in a OD&D game? You're suggesting that *only* rolling a Search check would find the trap door?

Or that the D&D3 rules say a Player must argue with his DM about a ruling (not covered in the book), but the OD&D rules say a Player will not argue about a ruling (not covered in the book)?

Bullgrit
 

Remove ads

Top