D&D General What Constitutes "Old School" D&D

[Ondath]

When I use the term Old School, I tend to have in mind the culture typology used in the Six Cultures essay. To quote:

5) The OSR ("Old School Renaissance / Revival")​

Yes, it's this late in this chronological listing. And yes, the OSR is not "classic" play. It's a romantic reinvention, not an unbroken chain of tradition.

The OSR draws on the challenge-based gameplay from the proto-culture of D&D and combines it with an interest in PC agency, particularly in the form of decision-making. The goal is a game where PC decision-making, especially diegetic decision-making, is the driver of play.

To me, this is what old school is about. Much like the Renaissance actually based itself off of an imagined classical past that wasn't entirely true, the Old School that the OSR harkens back to is an imagined past developed out of rules-lite, simulationist style of play. I'm not saying something similar to this playstyle didn't exist back in the 70s and 80s as well, but I think the typical OSR concern about invisible rulebooks and emergent stories is a recontextualisation of old rules IMO. So to me, Old School is more an imagined past that's created by an amalgamation of B/X (but not OD&D's tournament style play), AD&D 1E and High Gygaxian simulationism. But to me, Old School is less about those and more about OSR, OSRIC and a modern "return" to the old rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

Then you've played with folks who truly, absolutely don't get the principles of most storygames, which are often much harsher on PCs than typical trad games. Tons of storygames are explicitly about hurtling toward tragedy, in ways no one can munchkin or optimize their way out of, that prevent turtling and ultra-cautious play, and that require the players to understand and buy in from the beginning, that this is about telling a story that has an end, and that end probably isn't going to be a happy one. The Between, Apocalypse Keys, Blades in the Dark, Trophy, etc.

You don't have to like storygames yourself, but what you're describing is just people playing games with no consequences. Given that the most common roll in a PbtA or FitD or related game is a success-with-consequence/complication, who knows what they are playing, or failing to play.

d&d is not one of those games, 5e especially is almost antithetical to the kind of harsh that goes with those games because the PCs don't even need anything now & by extension have nothing to lose gain or plan for.

 

[overgeeked]

You are making more of my Mary Sue comment that I intended. I mentioned fanfic and the existence of "Mary Sue" more as evidence that people have put themselves or a character they create into a heroic story. The Mary Sue derives from a similar place as the ttrpg or the portal fantasy or even the whole LITRPG/Ieasaki genre.

So people have been using D&D to create a more story and more heroic themes from the beginning.

I'm using the Mary Sue comment as a springboard to my point. Critical Role's main draw is that the people involved are good at story and drama. Playing in a game with people who are good at story and drama might be a lot of fun. Unfortunately, most gamers are atrocious at story and drama. And more often than not, when most gamers attempt story and drama they end up railroading rather than playing a game.

Then you've played with folks who truly, absolutely don't get the principles of most storygames, which are often much harsher on PCs than typical trad games. Tons of storygames are explicitly about hurtling toward tragedy, in ways no one can munchkin or optimize their way out of, that prevent turtling and ultra-cautious play, and that require the players to understand and buy in from the beginning, that this is about telling a story that has an end, and that end probably isn't going to be a happy one. The Between, Apocalypse Keys, Blades in the Dark, Trophy, etc.

I'd say it's that and/or they don't understand story or drama. Either way, the result is basically the same.

You don't have to like storygames yourself

I like them in theory. Just not in practice. For the reasons I've said.

 

[overgeeked]

When I use the term Old School, I tend to have in mind the culture typology used in the Six Cultures essay. To quote:

To me, this is what old school is about. Much like the Renaissance actually based itself off of an imagined classical past that wasn't entirely true, the Old School that the OSR harkens back to is an imagined past developed out of rules-lite, simulationist style of play. I'm not saying something similar to this playstyle didn't exist back in the 70s and 80s as well, but I think the typical OSR concern about invisible rulebooks and emergent stories is a recontextualisation of old rules IMO. So to me, Old School is more an imagined past that's created by an amalgamation of B/X (but not OD&D's tournament style play), AD&D 1E and High Gygaxian simulationism. But to me, Old School is less about those and more about OSR, OSRIC and a modern "return" to the old rules.

I really think that is way off. I started in 1984 with B/X and AD&D and that is literally how we've always played.

For most old-school gamers I know, "It's a romantic reinvention, not an unbroken chain of tradition," is objectively false.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Old-school is Pre-WotC for me. (no wat to do multiple votes, so when with "other").

That isn't what old-school was 25 years ago, but now....

 

[Sacrosanct]

I really think that is way off. I started in 1984 with B/X and AD&D and that is literally how we've always played.

For most old-school gamers I know, "It's a romantic reinvention, not an unbroken chain of tradition," is objectively false.

We played 1e from 1981 to 2012. I don't really agree with "an imagined past" since we played the same way the entire time.

 

[Reynard]

Old-school is Pre-WotC for me. (no wat to do multiple votes, so when with "other").

Why wouldn't you just pick Late 90s then?

That isn't what old-school was 25 years ago, but now....

See, I don't think it changes. Just like "classic rock" is a genre now. They might play Pearl Jam on the "classic rock" station but that doesn't make it not Grunge, and doesn't mean it's the same genre as Zeppelin.

Taxonomy has value.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Like when my students say " back in the day" and they mean 2018!!

Other than NPR and my morning alarm (yes, I still have a dedicated alarm clock because I try to stick to a "no phone in the bedroom" rule), I cannot remember the last time I listened to the radio.

I stopped listening to radio when the classic rock stations started playing the bands I was listening to classic rock stations in order to not hear, so yeah.

Perhaps that's the demarcation of old-school? When you look at the previous iteration and it doesn't feel recognizable as "your" D&D. Or perhaps it's the opposite, when an older iteration feels like your D&D and what comes after does not?

It definitely is, though, to be fair.

It's a decade+ old, it is meaningfully different from what has come since, and the difference is such that it feels, to many people, like a change in genre.

There are people playing dnd right now who weren't born when 4e was first released, and who would have trouble recognizing it as the same game as the current iteration of the game.

 

[Jer]

For me Old School is an attitude towards gaming, not an edition - though I find it perplexing that some folks can use certain editions and think of them as Old School.

For me an Old School game is one where:

1. Life is cheap - don't count on your character making it to level 2, and if you do don't count on making it to level 3.
2. Because life is cheap, character creation is quick - roll some stats, pick a class, don't spend time on backstory or anything because there's no time you need to get your replacement character into the game now. You'll figure out a personality for them as you play, not in advance.
3. Stats mostly don't matter, except maybe to qualify for a class, so random stat generation doesn't really matter much unless you really have your heart set on a paladin. But you'll roll up 12 characters anyway and take the best stat array anyway because that's just how you do things.
4. It's perfectly acceptable to take your dead character and write a "2" next to his name and claim he's the brother of your original character. Or to change the first letter of his name and do likewise - "This is Xafrax brother of Zafrax who also happens to be a 1st level magic-user - you kept my brother's stuff for me, right?"
5. Things are going to be random and make no sense if you think too long about it - and that's fine because that's how it's supposed to be. Why is there an owlbear lair in the middle of this dungeon where there's no way for it to get anywhere to hunt? Don't worry about it - owlbear lairs probably have pretty good treasure and maybe you'll find an egg! Kill it quick!
6. There's going to be a lot of tapping around for hidden traps and secret doors while the DM is making funny looks at you and secretly rolls dice and then tells you that you've found nothing.

Where things shift between Old School and modern gaming for me is how much I care about my character from jump. If I've invested hours in creating a character then I'm going to be irritated if I die as soon as I fall into a random pit and have to do it all again - to me that's a modern gaming attitude. If I've spent 10 minutes rolling some dice and making a handful of choices and I'm good if this 4hp character named Gerald takes a goblin spear to the gut in the first encounter because I can just cross out his name and write "Gerald 2" on it, claim it's his twin brother, and move on that's Old School. I will probably come to care about this character if he survives for a few sessions and starts to get a personality, but not from the start.

(And this is why I can't think of 2e AD&D as "old school" unless you're basically just playing it as 1e AD&D with some tweaks. Proficiencies and kits change AD&D from old school to modern in my eyes by making me invest more effort into character creation than I want to for a PC who might very well die 5 minutes into the adventure, and also will make the character a bit too unique to feel good about just changing his name from "Garth" to "Barth" and moving forward with it.)

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I'd say it's that and/or they don't understand story or drama. Either way, the result is basically the same.

I like them in theory. Just not in practice. For the reasons I've said.

This is the equivalent of someone saying they don't like D&D because they played with people who didn't use the rules and didn't like the idea of level-based progression and also weren't so into fantasy, but sometimes they rolled a d20 to resolve things.

What you described is play that would be been unsatisfying no matter what the game. Hate those players, not the games (which it sounds like you still haven't really played)