Why is there a rush to define vintage gaming?

[ExploderWizard]

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

Bullgrit

Oh noes!! Not the cola comparison again!

 

[billd91]

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

Bullgrit

I think I prefer "old school" in part because that's the language that's been emerging and not just on this forum.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"Vintage" makes it sound like clothing, and "classic" makes it sound like a car. I propose "atavistic".

 

[Bullgrit]

Or maybe simply,
"[original] Dungeons & Dragons"
"Basic Dungeons & Dragons"
"[first edition] Advanced Dungeons & Dragons"

'Cause, really, they were each notably different in rules and style and feel.

Bullgrit

 

[Clavis]

When applied to D&D, "Classic" already has an established usage. It refers to the rules as found in the Moldvay/Cook Basic & Expert sets, the Metzner Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters-Immortals sets, and the Rules Cyclopedia. Sometimes the Holmes set is considered part of "Classic" as well, but it is also considered it's own version.

 

[avin]

"Why is there a rush to define vintage gaming?"

We love polls!!!!

/thread

 

[Doug McCrae]

We already have perfectly good shorthand to describe editions - OD&D, B/X, BECMI, 1e -> 4e. d20 D&D/pre-d20 D&D covers the NS/OS distinction as it relates to editions. OS as a style pretty much means the same thing as "Gygaxian gamism". But OS is shorter and more recognisable. It's usually clear from context whether you're using OS to refer to editions or a play-style.

 

[thedungeondelver]

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?


Bullgrit

I dunno, man. You tell me.

 

[Ariosto]

In sci fi, black box Traveller is pretty much a quintessential old school game in mechanics, style, and presentation.

That's because Marc Miller and crew analyzed what made the original D&D set tick, so I understand the utility of such examination. Ken St Andre did a similar but less in-depth analysis (based on a brief reading of the booklets, IIRC) , and was the first to market with something meant to be "D&D, but better" (by some measures). So, it's no big surprise that many fans of old D&D find similar qualities in those games. There can be some reasonable basis for saying, "Hey, if you like this game, then you might also like that game" -- but that's a long way from a guarantee.

The same set of characteristics is not present in all such games. Most lack, even broadly, features considered essential to D&D. In stricter terms, they clearly are not D&D. Moreover, there are features in some that many "old school" gamers would object to seeing added to D&D. It might not be such a big deal if someone goes along such lines with "house rules" -- but to inject them in any "official" sense might be offensive. At best, it would depend on details of implementation.

The "school" may initially have coalesced in reaction to developments of the 2e era. There certainly are some folks who basically anathematize all that is "post-Gary" (and a subset of them who consider Unearthed Arcana the Satanic Verses). However, what really brought it to prominence was people finding that they couldn't stand WotC's D&D ("3rd edition").

Talk about your troubles with definition! The new meaning of "D&D" is simply whatever the heck gets labeled with the trademark. That's as arbitrary and capricious as you can get. As a consequence, 4e can be (by "old school" lights) "better" in some ways while being in sum if not "worse" then at least still so bad that the improvements hardly matter.

All this is significant because the game is called Dungeons & Dragons. If it were "the latest edition of Everquest", then maybe it would be in for a critique from "old-school" EQ players; but there would be little reason in the first place to expect much notice -- much less approval -- from fans of old D&D. What do most WoD, GURPS and Rifts players think of D&D 4e? Probably quite literally not much. There's no "edition war" because in that context there's no pretense of considering different editions; they are unambiguously labeled as entirely different games.

Some things may fit the bill when implemented one way, not when they work another way. Some things may be acceptable to "old-school" fans in games that are not D&D, but it does not follow that they want them in their D&D. Start saying, "well this is old school, and so is that" in terms of different games, and I guarantee confusion because there are plenty of people who want confusion. They don't want to understand what people are talking about. They just want some rhetorical way to claim the "old school" label as prize.

Maybe one reason is that there's pretty much a one-way street here. The fans of old games are not going through contortions to get them recognized as "new school", so there may be a supply and demand thing going on with valuation of the terms. Anyway, the business is certainly not symmetrical.

Hypothetically, though, let's suppose that some publisher of a "retro-clone" (or of the next edition of Tunnels & Trolls) decides to grab "new school" as a marketing concept. "We've got your 'play style', baby! Anything 4e does, this game does better!"

The fact would remain that it is actually different by design. People purchasing it with misleading expectations would probably -- and quite naturally -- be disappointed.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Because the modern day 4e players are trying to figure out who to round up and put on the box trains and who gets to stay and play D&D.

Just do what I'm doing, hide in the walls with your group and play D&D real quietly. Hopefully the 3e players will soon rescue us and end the persecution.

Pardon me, but I laughed out loud, literally.

Careful though, there could be Godwin accusations forthcoming.