Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 1 Failure and Story

For me, the difference between Old School and anything else is not in the rules, but in attitude. Is failure, even losing, possible, or is it not? Is it a game, or is it a storytelling session?

View attachment 103704
​

Notice it’s “storytelling”, not storymaking. Every RPG involves a story, the question is, who creates the story, the GM or the players?
​

Inevitably, 40-some installments into this column, “Old School” would come up.

“ . . . role-playing games do not have plots. They have situations at the campaign, adventure, and encounter level which the players are free to interact with however they wish– as long as they accept the consequences!” - Jeffro Johnson (author of the book Appendix N)​

This will be in three (oversized) parts, because understanding of this topic is fundamental to discourse about what some of us (at least) call RPGs, and there’s too much for one or two columns (I tried). I think of a Quora question that asked what a GM can do when a player’s character does something insane or ludicrously inappropriate during a game. The answers varied widely depending on the goals of the answerer. The Old School answer is, “let the character suffer the consequences of the action”; but for those on the New School side, it was a much more complex problem, as the character’s actions would make it hard if not impossible for the GM to tell the story he had devised for the adventure.

Likely everyone reading this has seen and perhaps discussed the term “Old School” in connection with RPGs. When I started to reconnect with RPG fandom a few years ago, I wasn’t sure what “Old School” meant. There seem to be many definitions, but I now see the fundamental divide as not about rules. Rather, it’s about the attitude of the GM, and of the players, toward losing and failure. That’s at the root of Jeffro’s rant, though he puts it in terms of plot and story, which are closely related.

As I said, this is in three parts. The second will talk about rules, GMing, and pacing, and about non-RPGs reflecting the two schools. The third part will talk about differences in actual gameplay.

I’m not going to be “one true way” the way Jeffro is (“thieves must have d4 hit dice” is one of his rants). I write about RPGs as games, not as story-telling aids or playgrounds, but I am describing, not prescribing even as I obviously prefer the Old School. Let’s proceed.

If it’s a game (Old School (OS)), there’s a significant chance you can lose, you can fail. If it’s a story session, with no chance you can lose, it’s something else. This is like a co-operative board game that you cannot lose: why bother to play?

In terms of story, in OS the players write their own story, with the benefit of the GM’s assistance. The GM sets up a situation and lets the players get on with it. (This is sometimes called [FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]"[/FONT][/FONT]sandbox[FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]"[/FONT][/FONT] in video games, though video games tend to impose an overall story as a limitation of using computer programming instead of a human GM.) The other extreme is when the GM tells the players a story through the game. (In video games this is called a linear game, where the story always ends up the same way.)

If a GM is Old School and runs the same adventure for several different groups, the results will probably vary wildly. If the GM is at the other extreme, the overall shape of the adventure will be the same each time, with variance only in the details.

Old School adventures are usually highly co-operative, because the characters will DIE if they don’t cooperate. New School doesn’t require cooperation, you’re going to survive anyway.

Not surprisingly, as the hobby has grown, the proportion of wargamers (now a small hobby) has decreased drastically. Many players are not even hobby gamers, that is, they’re not quite “gamers” in the old sense because the only game they play is their RPG(s). Many people want their games to be stories, so the shift from Old School to something else is not surprising.

D&D 5e bears the marks of the newer playing methods, as there’s lots of healing as well as the ridiculous cleric spell revivify for mere fifth level clerics.

There are all kinds of shades of the two extremes, obviously. And all kinds of ways of running RPGs. Next time, I’ll talk about more differences between Old School and newer ways of playing such as Rules and Pacing, and compare with non-RPGs.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[5ekyu]

Ah, one true wayism. Everyone else must just be missing it.

For example, the traits exploited by FATE mechanics are part of the character -- they are definitional for that character. Real persons often have traits that cause them woe, and that mechanic is used to pull this real person roleplaying out. You skip this part of real person roleplaying by preferring perfect persons with no flaws except those brought by the player. All of the flaws in your real person roleplay are the player's flaws passed through the pawn of the character. Surely, you can see this?

Uhhh...
No.

The meta-gaming/bargaining/compelling/bribery nechanics used in many types of games where a trait is/can-be brought into play by a GM offer of a gimmick point if the **player** accepts the proposed event/manifestation is not the only way you get flawed characters into play, not opposite "preferring perfect persons with no flaws" etc.

For decades now many games have reoresented flaws (definitional ones) as things included by the player and that then occurred in play **without** any need for at the moment negotiation.

In HERO and others, you could give your character very defining flaws that occurred in play, no bargain on the spot needed, just as part of the in-game play, no in-pkay meta-gaming by players.

Phobia against spiders 14- debilitating - mecha-spiders attack - roll fail and be frozen for a bit in panic - no bargain.

In sime games, they brought with them extra points at part of chargen (as the bribe) but that avoided the in-game meta-game player bargaining by moving it up front.

Other games presented these traits in a more naturally offsetting ways, no points or bribes, but with the idea that sonetimes they eould benefit you and other times not. A given virtue or flaw might give bonuses in one case and detriments in others - determined by situation - again - not meta-game player side on-the-spot negotiations.

But then, in many games, folkdms just played characters with flaws as part of rolrme playing a character - no rules needed to provide any mechanics and benefits or pay-offs for "my guy hates orcs so i attack, no negotiating".

In my experience, i saw more "flawed" and many ways more real peopke characters in play in game systems where there was little or no system defined flaw structures as the system did not get in the wsy of that part of the "who is this person?" definition and play by framing and trapping it in pre-formed structures of frequency, severity or "chip economy" - especially "chip-economy" that is significant in gameplay.

One of the things that soured me over the2d20 system play was how so very greatly the fully integrated momentum gimmick points took over the mechanics of gameplay - momentum tally gains being the thing players cheered for in a lucky strike and seeming more important than what that strike did to the enemy in that fight.

Whether one wants flawed chars or not is a wholly different thing from whether one wants those represented by meta-game player side bargains - esp ones with significant system play involved.

 

[5ekyu]

From wikipedia:
"Metagaming is a term used in role-playing games, which describes a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances." (emphasis supplied)

From urban dictionary:
"When game information outside of what is available in a game is used to give a player an advantage in-game." (emphasis supplied)

From Wiktionary (RPG definition):
"Using out-of-game knowledge to the player's advantage in a role-playing game." (emphasis supplied)

I could keep going, but I'm just saying that the DM, by definition, is always going to be "metagaming." To the extent you are using that word to refer to the DM, then you are using it in an idiosyncratic way that other people will not understand, and you should probably use a different term.

Do not take this as advocating for that degree of anti-metagaming redefinition but ...

As for GM always meta-gaming - does that also apply to say dungeons play where the PCs are not known in the design, start at door, more pick-up roust the dungeon game play too?

Thats not my cup-o-tea mind you, but it exists.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

Uhhh...
No.

The meta-gaming/bargaining/compelling/bribery nechanics used in many types of games where a trait is/can-be brought into play by a GM offer of a gimmick point if the **player** accepts the proposed event/manifestation is not the only way you get flawed characters into play, not opposite "preferring perfect persons with no flaws" etc.

For decades now many games have reoresented flaws (definitional ones) as things included by the player and that then occurred in play **without** any need for at the moment negotiation.

In HERO and others, you could give your character very defining flaws that occurred in play, no bargain on the spot needed, just as part of the in-game play, no in-pkay meta-gaming by players.

Phobia against spiders 14- debilitating - mecha-spiders attack - roll fail and be frozen for a bit in panic - no bargain.

In sime games, they brought with them extra points at part of chargen (as the bribe) but that avoided the in-game meta-game player bargaining by moving it up front.

Other games presented these traits in a more naturally offsetting ways, no points or bribes, but with the idea that sonetimes they eould benefit you and other times not. A given virtue or flaw might give bonuses in one case and detriments in others - determined by situation - again - not meta-game player side on-the-spot negotiations.

But then, in many games, folkdms just played characters with flaws as part of rolrme playing a character - no rules needed to provide any mechanics and benefits or pay-offs for "my guy hates orcs so i attack, no negotiating".

In my experience, i saw more "flawed" and many ways more real peopke characters in play in game systems where there was little or no system defined flaw structures as the system did not get in the wsy of that part of the "who is this person?" definition and play by framing and trapping it in pre-formed structures of frequency, severity or "chip economy" - especially "chip-economy" that is significant in gameplay.

One of the things that soured me over the2d20 system play was how so very greatly the fully integrated momentum gimmick points took over the mechanics of gameplay - momentum tally gains being the thing players cheered for in a lucky strike and seeming more important than what that strike did to the enemy in that fight.

Whether one wants flawed chars or not is a wholly different thing from whether one wants those represented by meta-game player side bargains - esp ones with significant system play involved.

That's a lot of words arguing a point I did not make. Nowhere have I said such mechanics are the only way to inout character flaws. I said they were a way and are character focused.

 

[Aldarc]

In my experience, i saw more "flawed" and many ways more real peopke characters in play in game systems where there was little or no system defined flaw structures as the system did not get in the wsy of that part of the "who is this person?" definition and play by framing and trapping it in pre-formed structures of frequency, severity or "chip economy" - especially "chip-economy" that is significant in gameplay.

"Oh yeah? Well, my anecdotal evidence could beat up your anecdotal evidence..."

(1) Simply reducing the nature of the Fate Point (and Trouble Compels) economy to a metagame bargain seems overly reductionistic, almost done for the sake of being able to dismiss the system on the sole basis of the taboo "metagame" word. It seems orthogonal to any actual debate of substance regarding the merits of the system.

As a roleplaying game, which Fate most definitely is, Fate wants to push the characters (and players) during play to make choices and lean into the drama of the fiction. The game is not only interested in what in-game complications you accept, but also the complications during play that you pay to reject. It's interested in what moments you find important enough to spend Fate points on in-game to push your character to succeed. When do you reroll? When do you push yourself a bit more (+2)? As such, Fate points are meant to highlight moments of heightened dramatic play.

(2) Fate's Troubles are not strictly speaking "flaws," though they can be written as such. A Trouble like "Manners of a Goat" will likely behave more like a behavioral flaw of a character that the GM may compel during a moment of tense negotiations. But if this players is indicating that they have "Manners of a Goat," then they are telling the GM that they want this character aspect to arise in play and complicate their character's story. They also have the option of leaning into that flaw of their own volition without the GM. However, the Trouble "Gotta Look Out for My Little Brother" would likely not operate as one would expect a character flaw. Or a Trouble may even link to a NPC: "Foiled Again by Doktor von Greed!", which would likewise not be a character flaw.

Furthermore, part of the problem with pre-bought "flaws" in other systems is that players often pick maginally significant flaws or drawbacks without guarantee in play to rack up points for better benefits. Your character's arachnophobia may never show up in-game, but you were after the Super Strength perk you bought with that flaw anyway. The nature of Fate is that Troubles are dramatic complications that players are indicating that they want to see play in-game. And players want them to see play because they are a good way of generating Fate points, which players will spend to push their characters further. Characters can have other character flaws that are not writtens as Troubles or aspects. Nothing is stopping them. Troubles are simply the ones the player has indicated they want the GM (or others players) to engage as a dramatically character-defining one. And it can change as the story progresses. You want to solve your brother's murder. Then you find out who did it, but now your Trouble changes to reflect that you want vengeance against them.

(3) It's easy to play Fate points in ways that don't force the player to drop out of character, even for behavioral situations. The GM looks at the player with the Trouble, "Manners of a Goat," and asks them, "Bronan the Barbarian. How are you feeling right now? These negotations have dragged on, and the priest clearly is being dismissive of you, refusing to talk to you in favor of your companions. Are you getting irritated at this point in the negotiations with this priest of the tribe?" Bronan the Barbarian: "You know what? Yes, I am." And then Bronan the Barbarian insults the head priest during negotiations. The GM slips Bronan's player a Fate point. OR Bronan the Barbarian: "No. I know the negotiation is too important for the region. I remain silent but bredugingly grit my teeth and curse under my breath." And Bronan's PC slips the GM a Fate point.

It is much as I believe [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] once said in another conversation on the subject. The more experience you have with the system, the more that this becomes second nature and you seemlessly remain in the headspace of your character while engaging the Fate point mechanic. Familiarity breeds ease of use. What breakes RP immersion for one person will not necessarily break immersion for another.

 

[Umbran]

It is much as I believe [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] once said in another conversation on the subject. The more experience you have with the system, the more that this becomes second nature and you seemlessly remain in the headspace of your character while engaging the Fate point mechanic. Familiarity breeds ease of use. What breakes RP immersion for one person will not necessarily break immersion for another.

Yep. I have made that point.

It is my thought that one of the best ways to make sure a mechanic breaks your immersion is to *concentrate* on how it breaks immersion. It becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are focused on how much your immersion is going to break, of course your immersion will break! It is like an itch - the more you concentrate on how much it itches, the more you feel the itch. As opposed to the majority of times when you manage to get distracted from the itch... and it just goes away on its own.

This extends to other dislikes of mechanics. If you work yourself up on how much you don't like a mechanic *before* you try it enough to gain facility, you create a situation where your preconcieved notion overrides the actual experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's still a bad distinction, because playing for the best story over character is not a NS trait of play. It is, however, often a storygame trait of play, but NS roleplaying games tend to put character front and center and mechanics exist to keep character front and center. The FATE compel is an example of this, as the trait compelled is something that the player built into the character as something that is defining. So, compelling it is putting that character front and center when the player might not want to engage in that aspect of the character. Other system do this less obviously, like Blades in the Dark, where exhibiting your vice or your flaws earn you XP (and there's only a limited number of ways to earn XP, so doing so can potentially double your XP take for a session).

You're making a distinction between Story Games and New School that hasn't really been present in the discussion. Certainly the OP seems to lump both of them together, so I've been approaching the conversation accordingly.

I'm sure we can make distinctions between those two types of games (I know where I would begin), and I'm sure there would be some variance on what those distinctions may or may not be, and which are important and which are not....but that's not what I was getting at with my post. I was acknowledging a part of a post I thought had some relevance to the discussion, while saying that I did not agree with the conclusion that was drawn as it relates to loss and how it is not experienced in the same way by New School Gamers.

And to be clear, I don't disagree that character is often front and center in new school games...I myself have sited Blades in the Dark in this thread in arguments against the OP's assessment. I don't agree with Lew's conclusion at all, and a large part of that is his use of terms in a very unclear way.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm not sure how to answer that? I wrote that the DM is always metagaming, because in a certain way the DM has to.

But it's really kind of orthogonal to the issue? By definition, the DM isn't metagaming, because by definition metagaming is about players, and playing the game.

There are good and bad DM behaviors, but none of them are metagaming.

My question had nothing to do with good and bad. It also had nothing to do with whether one views the GM as a player or not.

It has to do with the proposition that a GM has to metagame by the definitions you presents and I put forth the more or less canned module pick- up game where the GM had no real info on the characters to factor in and doesnt change the contents.

 

[5ekyu]

That's a lot of words arguing a point I did not make. Nowhere have I said such mechanics are the only way to inout character flaws. I said they were a way and are character focused.

You put Fates system up vs a real person playstyle and went to a flawless character as the real person, putting flawless as the other side of that coin.

My point was that there are many ways put forth over time in many games that enable system support of flaws without player metagaming in play - flaws occurring as situation demands not by "bargain", etc.

Additionally point made that even without system side support, many flawed characters are played.

So, the point made that the alternative is flawless characters is unfounded.

"Real persons often have traits that cause them woe, and that mechanic is used to pull this real person roleplaying out. You skip this part of real person roleplaying by preferring perfect persons with no flaws except those brought by the player. All of the flaws in your real person roleplay are the player's flaws passed through the pawn of the character."