Why is there a rush to define vintage gaming?

[Ariosto]

I really have not seen any big problem in actual play. In the only practical applications I've encountered, the 4e group and the old-D&D group agreed on the "OS" characterization -- just not on whether they liked or disliked the phenomena.

Maybe this demand for sharp definition has something to do with the degree to which WotC's "editions" are really different games, such that a group is clearly playing either one or the other -- and the more general importance in those contexts of rules defined by the books.

From that perspective, the Other is notable for blithely mixing as many as half a dozen different editions and four OGL "simulacra" -- and just as blithely changing whatever "rules" may be the result.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A lot of the new interest is probably being generated by the various retro clone systems that are available. They are starting to get noticed and there may be quite a few newer gamers who were not playing during the OD&D/BX/AD&D era. The free availability of these games combined with the current economic climate makes for a potential pool of fresh faced gamers without a budget checking out what these free games have to offer. There are bound to be questions arising from all this.

Of course any area of interest will get noticed by the old hands who are happy to discuss gaming preferences at the drop of a hat. Add the internet which turns discussion into debate and debate into argument and presto-our current situation.

 

[jdrakeh]

I could be wrong, but I think the reason some people want definitions is far more simple and less conpiratorial than some of you think. If a word has no definition, it means nothing.

 

[Vigilance]

I wrote my first OSRIC book two years ago (OSRIC Unearthed), and I have just returned to the system to write for it again.

And you know? I feel pretty damn good about that decision.

And it's definitely not nostalgia. There are plenty of systems I could write for. I chose OSRIC cause I like it.

 

[Xyxox]

There is NO "Old School" or "New School."

There is only gaming.

 

[Ariosto]

Original D&D
Holmes Basic
1st ed. AD&D
Moldvay Basic
Mentzer Basic
2nd ed. AD&D
Castles & Crusades*
Basic Fantasy RPG*
Labyrinth Lord
OSRIC
Swords & Wizardry

*(note "ascending" AC)

The play is the thing ... then, get thee to Welcome to Dragonsfoot -- where all the above mingle without too much worry over "Are we old school?"

There are more pressing concerns, such as trying to make theoretical sense of "by the book" 1st ed. AD&D initiative, pointing out the error of the ways of those who score experience points differently, and whether demi-human level limits are Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil.

 

[Henry]

There is NO "Old School" or "New School."

There is only gaming.

There IS no spoon.

 

[jdrakeh]

The play is the thing ... then, get thee to Welcome to Dragonsfoot -- where all the above mingle without too much worry over "Are we old school?"

The Dragonsfoot definition of "old school" is, unfortunately, pretty limited to D&D or D&D clones. IMO, there are a lot of other games that qualify as "old school" (e.g., Starfaring, Traveller 1e, Tunnels & Trolls, The Fantasy Trip, etc). This is a great example of why a more standardized definition would be useful.

 

[Ariosto]

Like I care any more today than 30 years ago what D&D-centric snobs think of the Chaosium games I dig. I sure as heck considered them an invigorating new approach back in the day!

This "old school" deal is a D&D thing. That's the lens through which all the observations are made. The fan bases of other games can develop their own "schools" if need be.

If the pundits come up with "a more standardized definition", then it's just going to tell you how T&T, Traveller, etc., are like D&D. That could be very useful indeed for people wanting to design more games like D&D, and it might serve other theoretical purposes.

But really, the freaking perennial hubris of people who consider D&D -- whatever edition -- the be-all, end-all of role-playing games got old a long time ago IMO.

 

[Hairfoot]

There is NO "Old School" or "New School."

There is only gaming.

That's true, but debate is difficult without labels. If only the labels were universal.

From what I've seen, in one trench there's a tiny clique of older gamers who want "old school"* to be a rigidly defined gaming philosophy which must be quarantined and guarded from contemporary ideas about gaming. In the opposite trench is a slightly larger, but still unrepresentative, fraternity of 4E enthusiasts who will not accept, under any circumstances, that a game less complex than 4E could be any fun at all.

Stuck between them, in No Man's Land, are those of us who want to identify where on the continuum we have the most fun with our games, and just play like madmen.

I've been strongly on the OSR side of the debate so far, largely because in the retro-clone forums I visit I've seen nothing but openness to new ideas and a wellspring of creativity which I think struggles to thrive in more rules-intensive gaming discussion.

Critics can always point to examples of prescriptive narrow-mindedness about what "old school" is. Fair enough. There's a diversity of opinions. But it gets flamey because someone always wants to take that example and tell the rest of us that those are our opinions, too, without actually asking what we think. Then we're caught in a cycle of accusation and denial which creates a false orthodoxy because people need something solid to rally around.


* I'm also in the why-did-a-tacky-hiphop-term-become-the-descriptor-when-"classic"-says-it-so-much-better group.