Variety of "Old Schools"

[WizarDru]

So, folks, tell us about your old TSR D&D games! What D&D did you use? Homebrew or campaign setting? Fantasy ing Vietnam or High Adventure (or somewhere in between?) What literature and media were your influences? High lethality? Low lethality? Over the top outrageous adversarial relationship with DM? More dramatic/narrative type stories? Sandbox? Modules? Just like the "Old School Primer" or something different? Whatever you want to share, please do. I only ask that the thread be kept positive, with no jibes or backhanded compliments towards WotC D&D or other playstyles. If you want to take issue with someone's statement, please start a new thread. I'd rather this thread be about contribution and inquiry rather than debate.

Well, there were several, to be sure. The first games we played were Basic D&D, Red box and they were pretty fast and loose. There wasn't a concept of story, per se. The whole idea of the RPG was still taking shape and while it was clearly a game of the imagination, the 'game' part loomed larger than the 'role-playing' part, as I recall. This would change fairly quickly.

The goal was to move on up to AD&D (which we foolishly thought of as 'real' D&D, at the time). This is where we would create campaigns, story-arcs and linked adventures that had some staying power.

Rules were in plenty. I find it funny to hear how later editions are supposed to be so rules-heavy, when one thing we did was ignore chunks of the rules that seems clunky or unnecessary to us in AD&D. Every campaign of which I was aware had house-rules, some small and some extensive (like, "here's a booklet of MY changes" extensive). Gary gave us plenty to work with and the mandate to use what you wanted. And so we did.

My game has always been what we would call cinematic. Free-wheeling and dependent more on what was fun or interesting than specific adherence to the rules. In one game I had elemental dragons destroy the temple the players had been raised in, forcing them on a quest to stop the dragons from rising and destroying the world. They traveled to a pyramid of traps that was full of anachronistic details. It was WONDERFUL.

In a game we played in college, my character was turned into a half-demon, wielding a sword called "Sanguinarius Predator", which was a demon bound in sword form. I remember fighting side-by-side with a bunch of Samurai Orcs in a pitched battle against a Frost Worm, hanging on to it's maw for my life and swinging my sword as it smashed my nigh-indestructible body into a glacier while the wizard summoned up an imperial fire demon to slow it down.

Good Times. Good Times.

 

[billd91]

I read the Old/New School arguments, and find myself not agreeing with anybody. Our D&D wasn't about "pixel-bitching", though we had no rules for rolling for perception/spot check. Our D&D wasn't about starting out as farmboys and becoming heroes, it was starting out as competent professional adventurers that did battle with goblins and saved princesses and such. That didn't mean we wanted "superheroes". We plotted out labyrinthine dungeons, but filled them with hardly any traps. DM fiat was king with no concept of "player empowerment", but there was no adversarial relationship between DM and players.

I'd like to point out that the bold emphasis I put above tend to be used by critics of the old school approach and are, I think, intended to caricaturize that style of play with extreme characterizations. So I wouldn't sweat not agreeing with those statements. Almost nobody who actually liked/likes old school play would really describe the play style like that.

That said, we used to play a lot of modules, a few home brew dungeons, and lethality was relatively low when we played 1e. After a few years, we started playing longer and more epic quests involving more story and personal interaction, as well as a higher lethality in some ways. I thought it had a lot to do with our tastes maturing away from the quicker gratification of the quick monster smackdown and toward a bit more subtlety, imagination, and fidelity toward a character portrayal. This isn't really to say the hack and slash taste was immature, rather that the skills involved in that sort of play are easier and first to learn, while the others generally come with time and development in the hobby. At least, that's my experience.

 

[The Shaman]

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say, but that doesn't address the point of the thread, which is: "Tell us about your TSR-era D&D campaign, particularly how similar or dissimilar to the style of play described in the "Quick Primer" . . .

The problem with this is that Matt Finch's Quick Primer is a very good introduction to playing the OD&D clone Swords and Wizardry but it is not, and according to Mr Finch isn't intended to be, a guide to all things 'old school.'

The notion that 'old school' is defined exclusively by OD&D is much too narrow, in my experience.

 

[Iosue]

The problem with this is that Matt Finch's Quick Primer is a very good introduction to playing the OD&D clone Swords and Wizardry but it is not, and according to Mr Finch isn't intended to be, a guide to all things 'old school.'

The notion that 'old school' is defined exclusively by OD&D is much too narrow, in my experience.

I entirely agree, hence this thread. In internet discussions "old school" basically gets defined by Finch's Primer, so I'd like to get folks to share their own "old school" experiences, particularly varieties different from the Primer.

 

[Grazzt]

So, folks, tell us about your old TSR D&D games! What D&D did you use? Homebrew or campaign setting? Fantasy ing Vietnam or High Adventure (or somewhere in between?) What literature and media were your influences? High lethality? Low lethality? Over the top outrageous adversarial relationship with DM? More dramatic/narrative type stories? Sandbox? Modules?

Campaign started in 1986 using AD&D 1e. Homebrew fantasy. Medium to high lethality influenced by Moorcock's Elric, Norton's Witch World, Tanith Lee, RE Howard's Conan, etc. Basically the grim/gritty, dark fantasy, magic is evil, let's summon demons, type stuff.

Never was really over the top adversarial, though I think it started that way We shifted more to dramatic stuff as the game progressed but the game remained fairly lethal. Both me and my players like death to be a real possibility for the characters, not just a speed bump that can be overcome with a night's rest.

We ignored rules we didnt like or that seemed to slow the game down somewhat (weapon vs. AC, weapon speed factors, etc). We changed or added some rules because they felt "right" (to us). For example, vorpal blades were +6 longswords, not +3 as in the 1e DMG. (Got this from a DM friend when I played in his game and liked it so i used the idea.) Since we used the "Good Hits, Bad Misses" article for crits and fumbles from Dragon #39, there was a chance of weapon breakage on a nat 1. And breaking a vorpal blade caused an explosion that radiated out from the weapon, dealing damage to everyone in the area...and possibly killing anything that was low on hit points...like the wielder or his allies. It kept the vorpal blade in check quite a bit actually.

We ran some modules in the beginning but moved on to homebrew addys. Some written out by me with a specific goal laid out for the PCs (like a lot of the canned modules you could by); others free-form and sandbox, basically "So, what do you guys wanna do today? Rob the treasury in the Tower of the Black Serpent? Ok..." or "Wander the countryside looking to see what's out there? Ok..." and off we'd go.

Memorable moments would be:
* The party's world-spanning quest to find and assemble the Rod of Seven Parts. (Which they eventually did.)

* Party fighting with Demodragon (yes- I lifted him from the D&D cartoon and statted him out; he was the main adversary for many many years). The party's fighter sacrificed himself by jumping in front of Demo's lightning breath weapon to save the party's magic-user who was performing the 'ritual' to send Demo back to the Abyss

* My brother playing a paladin who was swallowed by a remorhaz and died. Party killed remorhaz, cut it open, pulled out paladin. Journey back to town, cleric prepares to restore the paladin to life, only to watch my brother's dice roll 00 when making his resurrection survival chance. Paladin dead. Forever.

* The party's dwarf fighter running into a cave opening, then tearing out of there screaming as he's being chased by giant bees. He swan dives off of a cliff to escape them, crashing into the rocks and water 100+ ft below. He didnt die, but almost did.

* Fighter having his arm bitten off by a dragon (remember, we used the crit rules). Fighter was mid-level at the time. Retired. Opened a business called "The Severed Arm Inn" which the party frequented and used as a base camp for quite a while.

* Party walking through town. Chamberpot emptied onto the head of one of the fighter's from a window above. Fighter refuses to wash off his armor. After party leaves town and is attacked by a couple of wandering monsters, the fighter, still refusing to wash himself, is ceremoniously tossed into the nearby river, platemail and all, by the rest of the party. He survived.

We moved from 1e to 2e, and then ended up playing a mashed up version of 1e/2e (we liked some 2e stuff but not all). Migrated to 3.0 and then 3.5 when they arrived. Tried 4e. Hated it. Never switched. Still run the same campaign (with some of the original players; some of the original characters are still active as well, ruling a kingdom, running a thieves' guild, etc.) using a modified version of 3.5.

 

[Mark CMG]

I like me some sandboxy hack-and-slash, and I also like narrative goals.

I took a second look at the OP and realized one of the misconceptions bothering me was the association of "sandbox" style play strictly with one end of the continuum between hack-and-slash and games including narrative goals. H&S is a player's playstyle (not always a roleplaying style) and achieving narrative goals is also part of a player's roleplaying style.

On a separate continuum, sandbox play is a GM's presentation style which requires certain setting considerations and can be used to house a game anywhere along the players' playstyle continuum for hack-and-slash and games including narrative goals. The more "sandboxy" the presentation, however, the fewer plotted lifelines a GM will throw to the players while they attempt to introduce their narrative druthers into gameplay.

At the other end of the GM's presentation style continuum is full narrative control by the GM, sometimes referred to as linear plot progression. It's a mistake, though, to think of it as linear plot progression because a GM need not have decided upon a plot in advance to maintain full narrative control, the GM need only be the deciding factor in how gameplay will produce story with or without taking player narrative goals and choices into consideration. A railroad need not be built with a destination in mind or in regard to who will be riding the train, nor need that railroad be built straight or without forks. And even if the GM has a destination in mind, it is impossible to know all the details of a story produced through gameplay until the game is over because just by virtue of players being at the table and being allowed any input whatsoever, the story is being affected.

I like to refer to this phenomenon as Schrodinger's Plot. There is a box into which many elements are throw during gameplay but until the game is done and the box is open, there's no telling the form of the story.

But these continuums (or continua) have always existed and continue to exist. The important thing to remember, IMO, for recognizing Old School and New School styles of play is how much the guidelines/rules affect play. Once again in this area, we find there is no clear line drawn but games where the GM is the final arbiter of consequences within the game as opposed to the rules as written tend to cleave closer to old school gaming. New school gaming is marked more often by the rules as written rather than thinking of the game as supplying merely guidelines. It is rare for any game to be played at the far extreme of either of these philosophies as almost all GM's make provision for the rules to carry some the burden of arbitration of consequences and likewise will make some judgement calls that set aside the rules in certain circumstances. What you will generally see, though, is old school style games tend to skew toward rules as guidelines and new school style games tend to rely more heavily on rules as written.

And let's not confuse randomness with who makes the call, for if the GM allows for all judgement calls to rely on the dice that alone doesn't tell us if this is old or new school gaming. It might seem as if a GM is abdicating his position if he let's the dice fall where they may but that is actually a very strong choice. In these circumstances, to detemine if this is more so old or new school, one has to look at how the GM is allowing those dice rolls to interact with the game. Does the GM think of the game in terms of guidelines and go to the dice often or does the GM utilize the rules as written and go to the dice when the rules call upon them?

It should be noted, perhaps most importatly, that published games can adopt mainly one style or the other (or something in between) and it is possible to take rules written primarily for one style and run them as GM in a fundamentally different manner but doing so is likely to also frustrate player expectations unless there has been a discussion of gaming philosophies prior to play among all involved. This conflict can sometimes be mischaracterized as a player entitlement issue. Although such issues do exist in other situations, there is no reason why a player who reads a rulebook geared toward rules as written shouldn't expect such a game to be played in that manner unless the above mentioned discussion takes place.

So, old school or new school? First look to how the game is written and then to how the game is being played. When these two factors are in synch, it's fairly easy to make the call. Otherwise, use your best judgement.

 

[rogueattorney]

I've written a number of places that the delineation of D&D into two lumps of "old school" and "new school" is far, far too simplistic.

The content and aesthetics of the products and assumed play style therein varies wildly from 1976 to 1986 to 1996.

I would argue that the style of the products - which sometimes would push the zeitgeist of playing public, and was sometimes pushed by the zeitgeist of the playing public - can broadly be lumped as follows:

Formative years: 1974-1977
Peak years and plateau: 1978-1983
Decadent silver age: 1984-1992
2e crash: 1993-1999
3e rebirth: 2000-2007
4e reinvention: 2008-

These phases don't necessarily track with edition. For example, I'd say the 1e of 1986 had a lot more in common with the 2e of 1990 than the 2e of 1994. Also, there have clearly been forerunner and retro products in each of the phases which make for exceptions.

I'd also say that the flow of D&D's style would sometimes go with that of the greater rpg world and be completely at odds with the greater rpg world at others. Which makes it hard to track D&D's "schools" with other games.

And once again... I'm talking about products, not playstyles, and sometimes playstyle followed the products and other times products followed the playstyles.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'd also say that the flow of D&D's style would sometimes go with that of the greater rpg world and be completely at odds with the greater rpg world at others. Which makes it hard to track D&D's "schools" with other games.

OD&D is clearly ahead of the curve, as the first rpg. 2e is trying to do much the same as Vampire and other games of the period - rely on the GM to get something resembling fiction out of a completely inappropriate rules-set. 3e falls behind the curve, resembling early to mid 80s games such as RuneQuest, HERO, RoleMaster and GURPS. As far as I'm aware 4e, with its emphasis on battlegrid gamism and downplaying of simulationism is something quite new.

 

[Celebrim]

"Since we used the "Good Hits, Bad Misses" article for crits and fumbles from Dragon #39, there was a chance of weapon breakage on a nat 1."

This is one of the most common house rules ever, and it is IME typical of 1e AD&D in two ways.

a) First, it was an optional table rule from Dragon that was assumed to be in force at a large number of otherwise disparate tables.
b) Secondly, the above is a widespread house ruling based on the optional table rule from Dragon which is interesting to me in that most people using this rule both arrived at it independently and weren't and aren't aware that this is not the way the rule worked as written.

The 'Good Hits, Bad Misses' article actually had little to do with natural 1's and natural 20's, and instead described the chance of a critical hit (or fumble) in what amounted to a variation of the 3e confirmation roll. Namely, the chance of a fumble was 1% per 1 you missed the to hit roll by (frex, if you needed a 6 to hit, and rolled a 3, there was a 3% chance of a fumble). Many people using the charts however, never read the article. I can remember talking with another DM with 10 years about the rules for something, and him admitting he'd never read that part of the DMG. I would say most groups didn't throughly read the rules, and instead, relied on truncated versions of the rules that seemed to them to be intuitive and easy in play.

I say 'most' though. You could try to say that the 'old school' style was ignoring rules and creating the game you wanted, but there were also old school DM's that liked to adhere pretty closely to the rules as written. I would say that if you wanted to call something 'old school', it would be Bill Cavalier's take on things: "Does this game have Dragons? Does this game have Dungeons? Then I want to play this game." I remember having arguments about single rulings that got really heated. I don't remember anyone ever saying thinking that there was one right way to play. People could like Chocolate and Strawberry. Now people are a bit more 'set in their ways'. I'd say 'comes with age', except that you see it from the younger generation as well.

 

[Libramarian]

First, humans are very bad at describing things in terms of quantities. They tend to be rather digital in their thinking and in their language. Things are either 'yes' or 'no'. In reality of course, many things differ by degree more than by kind, and reality is analog and this is true even when there aren't obvious physical characteristics that you can measure. When humans argue or debate, there is a strong tendency to want to assign everything to two easily differentiatable camps, so there is a tendency to always describe everything according to extremes so as to highlight how different the thing that you don't like is from the think that you favor. Of course, in reality, even if the two debaters are as extreme as they make themselves, which is unlikely, the majority of people probably are not and the difference between them - while real - isn't as easily described or labeled.

OK, but do people do this to be rhetorical dicks, or because this makes thinking and discussing complex topics a lot easier?

I am readily capable of distinguishing individual gamers and games, and ways to play games, and the fuzzy boundaries of ways to play games in practice.

At the same time, I appreciate the term Old School as a catalyst for playstyle theory talk.

I feel like some people want to blow up the whole OSR discourse just because they personally find some terms and simplifications offensive.

I have the same respect for them as I do for those who want to blow up the whole Forge discourse for similar reasons. Not a lot!

Anybody who wishes to destroy knowledge because they find confusion more comfortable should be mocked for this predilection.