What are the characteristics of an "olde school game"?

[Imaro]

Are we only talking about "old school" as it applies to D&D...Because if so then alot of these points make sense, if not...then I can't agree with alot of them. Runequest was, IMHO, old school and it (along with most of chaosium's games like Stormbringer 1st ed., Elfquest, etc.) flies in the face of these declarations of what "old school" is.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Again, nonsense. Now, I may hit this nail harder than others would because I played very little pre-3E D&D where we got xp for treasure. My own old-school D&D experience then is one where advancement is VERY slow. Occasionally AGONIZINGLY slow. Even so, EVERYTHING living was worth XP. Everything. You don't avoid 400 orcs unless you're in a scorching hurry to get from A to B. Yes, those orcs may be worth diddly, but that is no reason NOT to take the diddly anyway as you move along. In fact, you look forward to them despite that, just to see how fast your small band of 5-10 PC's can take down HUNDREDS of low-level critters. You got to use that little 1E rule that gave you 1 attack PER LEVEL against 1HD creatures. Great fun!

Fighters get 1 attack per level against under 1HD creatures. so if it's kobolds, goblins and 0-level humans all is good if it is orcs you areout of luck.
Avoid the 400 orcs if you are in a hurry.

... there was xp for every spell you cast. XP for every thief-ability you used. You NEVER pass up opportunities to gain easy XP like that without good roleplaying reasons to do so.

You earned less exp for fighting things of noticeably lower level too. There wasn't xp for every spell you cast or using thief abilities...that's all revisionist.

Frankly, the fact that you even CONSIDER avoiding anything but TPK-level encounters shows that you have never truly had an old-school experience. You just don't get it.

Sorry friend, you are way off there. Started playing in the 70's. Ever read the advice in the PHB? Avoiding unneeded fights was smart, fighting everything was stupid. Part of the DM cook book is distraction.

 

[Quasqueton]

"Old school" is a complicated, misleading, and self-contradicting term for D&D. For every item someone lists as an "old school" aspect, someone else will list something completely contradictory.

Does it refer to game mechanics or play style?

As game mechanics: one person will say old school was more open and free and easy, but another person will say they were restrictive and byzantine and complicated.

As play style: one person will say it was all role playing and personality developing, but another person will say it was all cardboard characters and table-top war gaming.

Even looking at the D&D adventure modules published at the time shows great diversity in "old school".

Tomb of Horrors is a very different scenario than Vault of the Drow, yet they are both from the same era in the game, even written by the same author.

And even with the same adventure module, players showed great diversity in how they played the material.

Steading of the Hill Giant Chief has most of the giants of the complex in one room, partying. Some groups took that opportunity to infiltrate the steading with stealth, avoiding the big gathering and raiding what they could before the party broke up. And then some groups took that opportunity to attack everything at one time, in one huge epic battle. Two completely different ways of dealing with the same scenario. Which was the true "old school" style? Reading responses so far in this thread says that both are old school.

I posit that there is no real "old school" style. It all comes down to "old school" means, simply, "How I played the game when I was 20-30 years younger, with less gaming and life experiences. How I understood, misunderstood, and interpreted the rules when first starting this hobby."

"Old school" is meaningless as a definitive and objective label.

Quasqueton

 

[Ourph]

"Old school" is meaningless as a definitive and objective label.

Quasqueton

Yesterday called. It wants its news back.

 

[Raven Crowking]

IMHO, old school is "taking primary inspirations from classical fantasy and pulps". There is no reason that 3e (or any game) cannot be old school.

 

[Rothe]

Are we only talking about "old school" as it applies to D&D...Because if so then alot of these points make sense, if not...then I can't agree with alot of them. Runequest was, IMHO, old school and it (along with most of chaosium's games like Stormbringer 1st ed., Elfquest, etc.) flies in the face of these declarations of what "old school" is.

I think the specific ideas are limited to "old school" D&D/TSR. En garde, Traveller, TFT, T&T, Runequest, EPT, etc. are all part of the pre-1980 "old school" gaming, but decidely different in rules mechanics.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"Old school" is meaningless as a definitive and objective label.

Are there not certain common elements we can take from the old Gygaxian material? For example you're right to say the adventures allowed total freedom of approach, so there's nothing inherently old school about kick-in-the-door or softly, softly but isn't the freedom itself an old school feature? Contrast this with Dragonlance which is very railroaded and plot focused. I think it's safe to say that Dragonlance, despite being 1e, is not old school, and was a herald for the next 10 or 20 years of more story-based gaming. Gygax's dungeon bashes otoh, whether it's Tomb of Horrors, the Giant series or Temple of Elemental Evil, are all location-based sandbox-style adventures.

I think we should pay less attention to individual experiences, which vary widely and may be misrembered or viewed through rose-tinted glasses, and more to the written material of the period.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I think the specific ideas are limited to "old school" D&D/TSR. En garde, Traveller, TFT, T&T, Runequest, EPT, etc. are all part of the pre-1980 "old school" gaming, but decidely different in rules mechanics.

TFT came out in 1980 with the releases of adv melee, adv wizard and ITL (certainly pre 1981 "old school" gaming ).

 

[Quasqueton]

I think we should pay less attention to individual experiences, which vary widely and may be misrembered or viewed through rose-tinted glasses, and more to the written material of the period.

Yes, but as I mentioned in my post, even the written material varied greatly, and the way people interpretted the material varied greatly.

I think it's safe to say that Dragonlance, despite being 1e, is not old school, and was a herald for the next 10 or 20 years of more story-based gaming.

I never read the Dragonlance series, but I've heard a lot about it in the years. But I agree that from what I know about them, they did seem to have a different style. But they were specifically based on books, with the stated purpose of letting game groups play through the books.

But look the various early "adventure paths":

Temple of Elemental Evil super adventure (basically 2-7 adventures depending on how you split up the dungeon)

The GDQ series

The Slavers series

The Saltmarsh series

Each of these had a story that expected the PCs to solve one adventure and move on to the next until the pre-*expected* resolution. Note, though, there is a difference between an expected resolution and a predetermined resolution.

Many players who played through these various adventure paths have similar stories -- defeating the hill giants, defeating the frost giants, defeating the fire giants, following the trail of the drow through the depths of the Earth (or Oerth), infiltrating the drow city, invading the drow temple, attacking the spider-ship, and driving Lolth's web of evil out of their world.

I'm not saying these adventures are just like the Dragonlance adventures; I'm saying even the non-Dragonlance adventures were story-based and plot driven. Dragonlance didn't create that style of adventure. And it seems that today's adventure path series are direct descendents of the Temple, GDQ, Slavers, and Saltmarsh-style adventure paths of the 70s and 80s.

Quasqueton

 

[Flynn]

I never read the Dragonlance series, but I've heard a lot about it in the years. But I agree that from what I know about them, they did seem to have a different style. But they were specifically based on books, with the stated purpose of letting game groups play through the books.

Actually, I thought the first novels were written based on the modules, not the other way around...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonlance_modules_(DL_series)

Hope This Helps,
Flynn