Why is there a rush to define vintage gaming?

[jdrakeh]

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.

Well, at least we can agree on that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I need to know what Old School is because I want to know what it is that people like. And if there is anything in it for me. So far, I pretty much came up empty, but at least I can see why people are interested in it.

It's kinda like chocolate ice cream. I am not a big fan of it. I don't have the motive to isolate everyone that might like chocolate ice cream.
But I don't want to go to an ice cream parlour that specializes in chocolate ice cream - unless I really want to try it out again, in which case I'd be looking for the sorts of chocolate ice cream that people generally seem to prefer, to see if there is, after all, something in it for me.

Of course, generic food metaphors are terrible, so to express it more precise:

I want to know what old school gaming is about. What are its unique components? What are its advantages, what are its drawbacks? What's in it for me? Do I want to do this? Do I like some of its elements and should try to bring it into my games?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Mustrun, i have been reading these threads (as I am sure so have you) and I see no consensus on what old school is, furthermore, 25 or so years ago when I was playing 1st ed AD&D and Basic D&D the games I played in did not fit in to any of the definitions bandied about here. They shared some characteristics with them but there were not the same.
I am now aware that the DMs I played with used a common set of house rules (an interpretation of AD&D if you will) I have never owned the books, it was not considered necessary back in the day (unless you played magic users).
I suspect that most people really played an interpretation of the game as written. Consideration that the RAW was holy writ seems to me to be a 3rd edition phenomemon.
If I was to go back to any game in that era, it would be to play The Fantasy Trip.
Is there anything to learn from that era, I dunno, I suppose that one sometimes simply do stuff without suport from the rules.
These days 4th edition D&D is old schools enough for me.

 

[aboyd]

I need to know what Old School is because I want to know what it is that people like.

Well, as evidenced by the first few pages of this thread, there is no agreement on what old school is. Therefore, there is no real way to tell you what old school is. However, you could end up with a lot of definitions from various people, and sorta make an amalgam out of it.

What are its unique components?

For me, there is absolutely nothing about old school style that is unique to old school games -- every single element could be incorporated into a newer module or game, no problem. Having said that, I guess there is a fairly cliche list of things that older modules are reknown for. These might include:

1. No monster ecology. As previously mentioned, see the old White Plume Mountain module for a visual of this -- monsters in giant glass aquariums, living right next to each other without fighting until the PCs come along. This is very gamist -- it makes no sense but in my early years it was ridiculously fun.
2. Dungeon crawls. Not every old module was like this, but many of the famous ones were. I still have my copy of The Lost City, and I remember fondly the many rooms that took months of real-world time to slog through. Michael Ferguson says of it, "hack-and-slash ruled the day."
3. No battle mat. Players would be expected to get out graph paper and chart out a map square by square. This idea is pretty much dead.
4. Exploration. Old D&D did not reward for killing monsters. It rewarded 1 XP per gold piece found. Thus, modules would often be deathtraps filled with riddles, poisons, pits, and other non-monster dangers. (Although monsters would be present too -- and hearkening back to the first point, the monsters would never trigger any of the dangers on themselves. They just waited, perfectly safe, until the adventurers arrived.)
5. DM/player negotiation. Back then, there was no feat list, nor skills. Any trick you wanted to pull off required selling the DM on the idea, and then having him make up a mechanic for it. Matthew Finch calls this "Rulings, not Rules." This is the most contentious point, I think. We've seen in recent threads here that many gamers nowadays are violently opposed to this style of gaming. It has been called fascist, oppressive, and someone recently said that DMs who run games like this are "control freaks." The thing is, that description might be slightly accurate in the sense that the game back then absolutely did rely on DMs taking control, but as a positive thing. What's interesting is that there are many current non-D&D games, such as Mage, that rely on this method nowadays. The games are not scorned, nor do the players get nerd-ragey about it. It seems only older versions of D&D get this vitriol, I guess because the players have become used to D&D 3 & 4 providing something else.
6. Character fragility. You had very hostile ways to create your character -- sometimes you couldn't even decide which stat would be your best. You might have longed to play a wizard, but you ended up with a character that had 4s in every stat except strength, which was an 11. Well, tough. That's the character you got. And guess what? Your wimpy fighter wouldn't get max HP at first level, so you might end up with 2 hit points. Death? Happened all the time.
7. Newness & surprise. This actually isn't a feature of old school so much as a byproduct -- the game came out, and as a generation began playing, everything was unknown. You had no idea what the monsters were like, nor what they could do. When people accuse grognards of looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, this is probably part of what they mean. It's a "thing" that we attribute to old school, but which is really more accurately attributed to age. So old school unfairly gets extra credit, which obviously raises some people's hackles.

Note that none of those are absolute. Someone could certainly post a reply saying that in their games they absolutely did have a battle mat (or whatever counterpoint they wish to make). That's fine. Exceptions don't diminish the generalities.

What are its advantages, what are its drawbacks?

To me, of the 7 points I listed, I'm really only interested in exploration, fragility, and surprise. Fostering those things makes my games so much more enjoyable (to me).

You can get stuck playing D&D 3 or 4 and forget that 1st edition game play had some completely different aspects to it. Sometimes, looking back at how things were played helps you to remember that some of the old approaches were quite fun. Once you realize it, you want to pull those aspects back in.

For me, I loved that old modules had large sections that were not monster fights. So I have bought up many of the Dungeon Crawl Classics modules, with their heavy traps and riddles.

Regarding character fragility, I tend to run sandbox games, and I will allow my players to fight giants at level 3. But I will also not pull punches, and deliver a TPK. To me, this is actually interesting if done in moderation. Too much and you can disrupt a player's attachment to the game. But without at least a little danger, the players will become bored and assume that success is inevitable, even with limited effort. I make sure my game foster something more intense -- they have to pay attention, use tactics, play smart, retreat, snipe, poison, whatever.

Finally, regarding surprise, I have found that the best way to foster this is simply to never run anything as-is. I revise everything, and if a player gets fussy that the module or monster isn't running as expected, well, good. I've put into the game a number of monsters that are simply bizarre and which the players have never seen nor heard of before. Therefore, it's much easier for them to role play their characters' bewilderment.

What's in it for me? Do I want to do this? Do I like some of its elements and should try to bring it into my games?

That's for you to decide.

 

[Chainsaw]

I am now aware that the DMs I played with used a common set of house rules (an interpretation of AD&D if you will) I have never owned the books, it was not considered necessary back in the day (unless you played magic users).

Back when I started DM'ing "Advanced" (moving away from black box with big red dragon on the front) for my friends, I was the only one who had any rule books. I *tried* to get them to buy the 2E PHB, but they really had zero interest (except the magic-user player who would sometimes look at the spell list). They trusted me to judge the situations and required rolls fairly. They were more interested in drawing cool pics of their guys and then trying to become that pic.

They really didn't care how close the alignment with the RAW (not a concept we'd even formulated) was as long as they were having fun - they were smart enough to appreciate that not every situation has a RAW application and respected me enough to go with my fiat. Plus, I had a reputation as a good student, so they knew I wasn't just randomly making up (most of the time).

I think that if the game had required them to know all the rules as well as they knew I tried to know them, they wouldn't have played. It all worked really well, actually. Easy to get new players when all they have to do is show up and say what they want to do...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's for you to decide.

Yes, naturally. Defining old school - like you do (or at least attempt to do) helps me figure this out. So thanks.

I think the only things that sounded interesting to me - but more due to the term itself and not the specific definition - was exploration. Oh, and newness is also nice, but I think it's not possible to create this permanently. (Though I think "exception based design" helps - you don't know how exactly this monster will work, even though it still fits into a specific framework.)

Your definition for exploration - if we assume that it's fitting - reduces my interest again, since I am not really interested in death traps. But I would like to reward people exploring the world, getting to know the area, and dealing with its challenges. But there is a limit to it, and the idea of searching a room with 10 ft poles or trying to make sense of some lever operated trap do not appeal to me. So maybe I am not looking for exploration, or at least not this type of exploration, after all.

 

[billd91]

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.

I don't think old school is just a D&D thing, though that's where the debate is most prominent thanks to recent, substantial shifts in the rules. You can see a bit of this in superhero gaming - V&V being pretty old school compared to M&M. In sci fi, black box Traveller is pretty much a quintessential old school game in mechanics, style, and presentation.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Back when I started DM'ing "Advanced" (moving away from black box with big red dragon on the front) for my friends,

snip

I think that if the game had required them to know all the rules as well as they knew I tried to know them, they wouldn't have played. It all worked really well, actually. Easy to get new players when all they have to do is show up and say what they want to do...

I totally agree, I think the first game where i actually paid attention to the rules of the complete game ( and I was not a GM) was GURPS and later and much more so 3e D&D. In 3e the system punishes you if you make a bad build.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Mustrum: deathtraps can be quite fun, though I loathe riddles.
The thing is that the players need to have a fair idea in advance that this place is death trap central and the players and DM need to be on the same page as to how they are going to handle it.
It requires a lot of trust on the players part that the DM is going to be fair and a common view of fair.
I would reccomend that you should try it once. It is challange for the DM though as you have to give an enough information on the room description to allow the players realise something is not right with out giving the whole thing away.

 

[Bullgrit]

Because, Bullgrit, many people put it negatively.

Man goes to a psychiatrist and says, “Doc, you have to help me with my problem. I see people being negative on D&D everywhere.”

The doctor says, “Really? I should test this.”

The doctor holds up a flashcard with a D&D rule on it. “What do you see here,” the doc asks.

“A negative statement on D&D,” says the man.

The doctor holds up another flashcard with a D&D rule on it. “What do you see here,” asks the doc.

“A negative statement on D&D,” says the man.

The doctor holds up another flashcard with a D&D rule on it. “What do you see here,” asks the doc.

“A negative statement on D&D,” says the man.

The doc says, “Hmm, it seems you do have a problem.”

“I have a problem?” the man says, “You’re the one making the constant negative comments on D&D.”

* * *

I just really haven’t seen anyone putting “old school” D&D negatively. It looks like to me that most of the discussion on defining “old school” has been among people who still play the older editions or at least like the older editions.

As I said, there's aspects of Edition War here. Don't be blind to it. Take it into account.

If this is your belief or what you see, I have an honest question: Is there any way to have a discussion on various aspects of an earlier edition of D&D without it being seen as an edition war?

Maybe you missed it, but up above in the thread, there's a Nazi reference. Real nice, constructive, civil discussion there. If you don't think that's enough to put people off their feed on the subject, well, you're just wrong.

But note that the comment exists in *this* thread, not in the other threads. It wouldn’t have been said at all if not for way this thread was started. So please don’t dip the brush in here and use it to paint the other discussions.

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

For terms, I think ”classic” is better than “vintage” is better than “old school.”

Bullgrit