Starting "Old SChool" gaming

[Grimstaff]

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.

This is a comment that frequently comes up in regards to the Old School Primer.

At its surface, this is true: there is nothing whatsoever stopping a 3E DM from allowing players to find traps, secret doors, etc. To whit, there's nothing stopping a DM from allowing players to successfully do stuff based on the verbal description of their actions, rather than a skill check.

The problem is this: In skill-based games like 3E (and 3E is by no means the only RPG to be skill-based), it is all too easy to assume that, because there is a Skill called Diplomacy, for instance, this is what should be used determine whether or not a character successfully negotiates his way out of a jam. Simply having a skill called Gather Information, implies that information is gathered by a skill check, not by coming up with a clever plan and implementing it. Both of these situations happened to me in a 3.5 session not 6 months ago, run by a good DM. Nonetheless, he was going by skill checks, not player interaction.

It would, perhaps, be different if the 3.5 skill descriptions included a line such as, "with a successful check, the player discovers the desired information. Alternatively, if the player comes up with a brilliant plan to discover such information, no skill check is necessary.", but they do not.

Matt's Primer is specifically aimed at reminding players and DMs that there is another way of resolving "skill-like" actions. If you run a newer edition game and get that, kudos! You're an excellent DM. But, many excellent newer edition DMs don't run things that way, too. And many players and DMs of newer edition games who are *used* to running things with a skill check will find the Primer to be a useful guide on how to run things without skill checks.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Well and good, but to be perfectly honest, the kinds of "player interaction" lauded by the Primer &al. were never really how we played our "old school" games in the first place. We played plenty of AD&D and basic/expert back in the day, and many actions indeed were resolved by a simple roll of the dice. They weren't "skill checks" per se, but that's precisely how they functioned in-game.

The character didn't have skill "X" written on his character sheet, but the game might as well have worked that way.

That's why I think it all comes down to a simple and bare-bones character sheet, vs. one laden with player-customized details and abilities. WotC ushered in 3rd edition with the motto, "Options, not restrictions", and this is a perfect motto for the whole idea of "new school" D&D. That's precisely what it is. Options for character creation and advancement.

To embrace the old school, players have to embrace the idea of "restrictions, not options", with the implicit understanding that this isn't necessarily a bad thing or a step backwards in the evolution of RPGs. Sometimes, restrictions mean player inspiration and role-playing opportunities. (To give an admittedly lame sort of example, when it came to creating 3e characters, I frequently couldn't decide what combination of race and class to play, so I would often roll my 4d6k3 in order, and let that guide my choice of class, thereby inspiring the character I would wind up playing.)

 

[Ariosto]

To embrace the old school, players have to embrace the idea of "restrictions, not options" ...

What???

The big deal with WotC's games is restrictions: strictly finite options requiring zero-sum trade-offs. You can do this but not that, and if you want to do that other thing then you need this and this and this (at the expense of those other things). If not for wanting that sub-game in such complexity, folks could get their lists of "customized details and abilities" in RuneQuest -- or any one of many other games of the 1970s - '80s.

The designers of 3e apparently tried to point out that it is not necessary to use all the procedures all the time. There have always been D&Ders, though, who insisted on having a rule for everything, and everything "by the rules". They flourished in the new environment, and -- with the "gamers" getting the upper hand again over the "simulators" -- they seem strongly to have influenced the design of 4e.

Without considering late 2e (with which I have but cursory experience), that state of affairs has prevailed for almost a decade. I think that has contributed to what seems to me a greater frequency of players who have difficulty simply role playing, as opposed to "roll" playing.

The game culture in general has changed significantly in a feedback loop with successive rule-book releases. Not only do players introduced to "D&D" more recently reflect that in their basic conceptions, but even people who started in the hobby's early years (I think of one local fellow) may have adopted the same habits of mind.

 

[Scribble]

What???

The big deal with WotC's games is restrictions: strictly finite options requiring zero-sum trade-offs. You can do this but not that, and if you want to do that other thing then you need this and this and this (at the expense of those other things). If not for wanting that sub-game in such complexity, folks could get their lists of "customized details and abilities" in RuneQuest -- or any one of many other games of the 1970s - '80s.

Lack of rules in place doesn't mean you have the ability to do more nor does it mean you can do less. It just means the game has not taken any of those ideas into account.

If you care about the game taking various options and ideas into account then the older games seem a bit more restrictive, and the newer models bring more options to the table without the DM or players having to determine on their own how they will effect the game.

If you don't care about the how the unruled options will effect the game, (or don't mind putting in the work yourself) then it doesn't matter.

 

[Ariosto]

Scribble, one could always go with Champions / Hero System if one really wanted more mechanically defined options with that whole sub-game and maximum flexibility compatible with such rules heaviness.

Again -- that is, relative to Hero System as well as to less comprehensively defined rules sets -- the advantage of 3e or 4e is one of more restrictions.

 

[Grimstaff]

WotC ushered in 3rd edition with the motto, "Options, not restrictions", and this is a perfect motto for the whole idea of "new school" D&D.

To embrace the old school, players have to embrace the idea of "restrictions, not options"

I hope this is meant to be satire.

 

[aboyd]

I hope this is meant to be satire.

Agreed. It sounds like it was written by someone who wasn't playing D&D back in the 70s/80s.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Agreed. It sounds like it was written by someone who wasn't playing D&D back in the 70s/80s.

Yeah, tell that to my troll-mind flayer crossbreed fighter who ran around with a githyanki silver sword... (they really hated him)

Far easier to make under 1e/2e than 3e/4e, that's for sure!

 

[Jack Daniel]

I hope this is meant to be satire.

I assure you, I'm completely serious.

I wholeheartedly believe that the more restrictive aspects of early-edition character creation are loads more inspiring than the morass of options that characterize the d20 System. Especially Basic Set D&D, with its simplicity-itself array of four human classes, three demihuman classes, and three alignments. It cuts through the drek and leaves everything to the imagination.

Agreed. It sounds like it was written by someone who wasn't playing D&D back in the 70s/80s.

...
I want to respond to this statement, but that might dignify it with some relevance.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I assure you, I'm completely serious.

I wholeheartedly believe that the more restrictive aspects of early-edition character creation are loads more inspiring than the morass of options that characterize the d20 System. Especially Basic Set D&D, with its simplicity-itself array of four human classes, three demihuman classes, and three alignments. It cuts through the drek and leaves everything to the imagination.

That makes a lot more sense. That's the Old School benefit, in my mind; since it isn't all spelled out, it can be what you need it to be.

Of course, you have play with a certain mindset in order to make such a system work. Whether it's 1e or a rules-light system like Over The Edge, you need to be willing to be fast and loose. A more detailed, all-encompassing mechanic like d20 also has benefits; for many people, having a rule for it makes it possible and having no rule makes it impossible. It's certainly better for tournament play, since fewer mechanics require a judgment call. I also found that there was a lot less rules-lawyering in 3e (at least, in the early days) because the rules were straightforward and applied everywhere.

There's no "better" way to play, but different rules and different attitudes result in better or worse choices for systems.