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!

 

[Arilyn]

Of course they can, if that works for you. It's not really what they describe in the rule book, but there's no reason you couldn't do it. It would kind of turn the game into Discworld, though, where narrative causality is a natural law, and everyone knows that a million-to-one shot works nine times out of ten. I can't imagine how anyone would be able to take that seriously (assuming you care about taking it seriously).
If my hero can acknowledge that he's tough enough to withstand ten arrows, then it's possible to play that off in a way that's cool and dramatic, as seen so often in popular media (comics, cartoons, novels, movies). If your world runs on a cosmic karma system, where messing up now will literally and causally allow you to succeed later, then it's very difficult to pass that off as anything other than a joke.

I'm not saying you can't do it. Deadpool is very popular, these days. I'm just saying that it's not what most people have in mind for their role-playing games.

I am not advocating for a "karma" run game. I think it could work a little better than you think, but that really wasn't my point. My point is that excusing the absurdity of hp, as just the way the world works because it is another reality, could be used as a rebuttal for any number of unrealistic game mechanics that you have deemed as too metagamey to exist in a rpg.

Yes, in superhero and some action movies, protagonists shake off tremendous amounts of damage, but not completely, until they drop. There is often some teetering and blood first. And they certainly don't have an inner meter ticking down exactly how many hp they have left. The other problem with the movie analogy is that everything in DnD can take wounds without being affected until 0. So this ability is not big damn hero stuff, it's just, according to you, world physics and biology.

I am not against DnD hp. They fit the game fine, but they are absurd, from any reality's point of view, a metagame conceit.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, in superhero and some action movies, protagonists shake off tremendous amounts of damage, but not completely, until they drop. There is often some teetering and blood first.

Sure, why not? The only thing that the rules say is that the minor wounds, which may eventually be enough to drop someone, don't cause enough of a physical hindrance for it to be worth modeling with the dice.

The other problem with the movie analogy is that everything in DnD can take wounds without being affected until 0.

Actually, the vast majority of people in a D&D game can't take wounds without being affected. Most of them get hit with one arrow, and they fall down and start bleeding out. Only very powerful individuals are capable of taking multiple arrows without dropping. (And I'm not saying whether they're expending effort to minimize real damage, or if they're just tough enough that they can take it; the only relevant factor is that it's observable by everyone involved.)

 

[Arilyn]

Sure, why not? The only thing that the rules say is that the minor wounds, which may eventually be enough to drop someone, don't cause enough of a physical hindrance for it to be worth modeling with the dice.
Actually, the vast majority of people in a D&D game can't take wounds without being affected. Most of them get hit with one arrow, and they fall down and start bleeding out. Only very powerful individuals are capable of taking multiple arrows without dropping. (And I'm not saying whether they're expending effort to minimize real damage, or if they're just tough enough that they can take it; the only relevant factor is that it's observable by everyone involved.)

But isn't it just really weird that wounds don't cause any trouble, other than noticing that the hp meter is running low? When Cap and Iron Man slugged it out in "Civil War", they were both definitely suffering from damage. In DnD, there are no consequences until you hit zero, and then you are in serious trouble. You stated, in an earlier post, that you feel that in the alternate world of DnD, people just don't suffer crippling pain from sword slashes, because physics is different from our world. You used this argument to counter the claim that hp are a metagaming conceit. Now, you state that DnD heroes are just really tough, or expend effort to minimize the damage.

As far as ordinary folk go, my argument can scale down easily. Two ordinary, non levelled characters go at each other with daggers. They each have 5 hp. They are not strong, and are only managing 1 or 2 hp worth of damage, when they hit. If they are sitting at negative 4 hp, they are still fighting just as well. Then 2 more points and they are in danger zone and unconscious. No, they can't take as many hp, as the average player character, but percentage wise, they are experiencing the same effect, that is, no crippling pain from weapon damage, until that meter runs out.

Once again, it's totally ridiculous, but it's no big deal in DnD. Since there is so much combat, we really don't want a realistic wound system, but it's still so divorced from reality (in any plausible world), that it become a metagame cheat. But hey, that's just fine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But isn't it just really weird that wounds don't cause any trouble, other than noticing that the hp meter is running low? When Cap and Iron Man slugged it out in "Civil War", they were both definitely suffering from damage.

Speaking of Cap, my own go-to example of painless wounding is from his showdown with the Winter Soldier, at the end of that film. You might think that having a knife buried into your shoulder would prevent you from doing a pull-up, or that being shot in the leg would affect your ability to jump, but Steve shows that it's not necessarily the case. It's entirely acceptable to have a game where non-trivial wounds aren't manifested mechanically.

In DnD, there are no consequences until you hit zero, and then you are in serious trouble. You stated, in an earlier post, that you feel that in the alternate world of DnD, people just don't suffer crippling pain from sword slashes, because physics is different from our world. You used this argument to counter the claim that hp are a metagaming conceit. Now, you state that DnD heroes are just really tough, or expend effort to minimize the damage.

There are a lot of different explanations that all fit. They could be superhumanly durable, or they could be expending effort. Neither option is inconsistent with the observation, that a damage inflicted does not cause crippling pain. (Not to mention that they're probably wearing armor, or are a wizard, or both.)

As far as ordinary folk go, my argument can scale down easily. Two ordinary, non levelled characters go at each other with daggers. They each have 5 hp. They are not strong, and are only managing 1 or 2 hp worth of damage, when they hit. If they are sitting at negative 4 hp, they are still fighting just as well. Then 2 more points and they are in danger zone and unconscious. No, they can't take as many hp, as the average player character, but percentage wise, they are experiencing the same effect, that is, no crippling pain from weapon damage, until that meter runs out.

I'm picturing this fight in my head, and I still don't see anything weird with it. If I'm in a battle for my life, and someone stabs me in a non-vital location, then I don't automatically assume that I'll be so overcome with pain that I can't keep fighting; but I also assume that, if they keep stabbing me, then I'll quickly get to a point where I'm unconscious and bleeding out. That doesn't seem far-fetched to me.

 

[Lanefan]

Once again, it's totally ridiculous, but it's no big deal in DnD. Since there is so much combat, we really don't want a realistic wound system

I wouldn't so much say we don't want it but more that we just don't have it, which is odd in that it's pretty easy* to bolt a simple wound-vitality (or body-fatigue) system along with abstract lingering-injury mechanics on to the hit point system - though the HD mechanic in 4e-5e would push back.

but it's still so divorced from reality (in any plausible world), that it become a metagame cheat. But hey, that's just fine.

Under the heading of 'minimize what can't be eliminated', adding on a wound-vitality system doesn't fix anything but it helps.

 

[Arilyn]

I wouldn't so much say we don't want it but more that we just don't have it, which is odd in that it's pretty easy* to bolt a simple wound-vitality (or body-fatigue) system along with abstract lingering-injury mechanics on to the hit point system - though the HD mechanic in 4e-5e would push back.

Under the heading of 'minimize what can't be eliminated', adding on a wound-vitality system doesn't fix anything but it helps.

Yes, I agree a vitality system would work, but would it be generally welcome? Is it worth the little extra bother?
Or would we give it a whirl before just going back to the old way of doing things? Out of curiousity, have you added vitality to your game? We tossed the idea around at my table, but nothing has come of it. In all the years DnD has been around, hp, like the names of the stats hasn't changed. Interesting question, would it be a welcome change?

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Yes, I agree a vitality system would work, but would it be generally welcome? Is it worth the little extra bother?
Or would we give it a whirl before just going back to the old way of doing things? Out of curiousity, have you added vitality to your game? We tossed the idea around at my table, but nothing has come of it. In all the years DnD has been around, hp, like the names of the stats hasn't changed. Interesting question, would it be a welcome change?

I've played the old Star Wars D20 Revised with it and ran my own 3.5 with tons of Unearthed Arcana D&D game with it, as well as Armor as damage reduction and level based AC. I ran this game from 2004 to 2007 so we had plenty of time to get a feel for the issues. One difficulty is to figure out how to handle the variety and scale of threats that show up in D&D. Ultimately while there are appealing aspects to using a Wounds/Vitality type system and I think for a really gritty type game that didn't feature a really broad variety of weird monsters it would be at its best.

It has its moments but ultimately the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

While certainly not old school, many of the meta plot driven published adventures found in various games during the 1990s had the player characters as second bananas to the publisher's favorite NPC.

My hypothesis was that many of those books weren't really designed to be played, but to be purchased and read. I'm pretty sure I didn't play 75% of the books I bought over the years. I got the most mileage out of D&D stuff but bought a whole lot of White Wolf and other games as well. Sometimes I'd mine them from ideas used elsewhere.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, I agree a vitality system would work, but would it be generally welcome? Is it worth the little extra bother?
Or would we give it a whirl before just going back to the old way of doing things? Out of curiousity, have you added vitality to your game?

About 35 years ago, yes; though we call it a body point/fatigue point system the principle is the same. Still use it. Write-up's here ( http://www.friendsofgravity.com/gam...ecast-blue-book-in-html/decbluebook4.html#hit ) if you want to look deeper.

The biggest in-play thing we have to deal with is that b.p. and f.p. cure differently, meaning almost every cure spell has different dice to roll depending on whether the target is in bodies or fatigues.

We tossed the idea around at my table, but nothing has come of it. In all the years DnD has been around, hp, like the names of the stats hasn't changed. Interesting question, would it be a welcome change?

Well, we thought it was; and through several system rebuilds since we haven't changed it much if at all.

 

[Immortal Sun]

My hypothesis was that many of those books weren't really designed to be played, but to be purchased and read. I'm pretty sure I didn't play 75% of the books I bought over the years. I got the most mileage out of D&D stuff but bought a whole lot of White Wolf and other games as well. Sometimes I'd mine them from ideas used elsewhere.

My roommate a few years back once said of Exalted: "It's a great read."