Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 2 and 3 Rules, Pacing, Non-RPGs, and G

Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 2 Rules, Pacing, and Non-RPGs

For me, the difference between Old School and anything else is not in the rules, but in attitude, as described last time. Yet the rules, and the pacing, can make a big difference; parts 2 and 3.

View attachment 103914
​

“Old School Games have a lot of failure, more mediocre outcomes... and the brilliant stroke that suddenly feels astonishing because there is something there to contrast it with. New School Games are grey goo.” Jeffro
​

Last time I talked about some differences between “Old School” and newer approaches to RPGs, especially related to story. Here are some more.
[h=3]Rules[/h] The difference in “schools” is not about rules. Rules are not sacred, nor do they fit for every person. I think about rules in terms of game design. Occasionally choices designers make in games are arbitrary, one is as good as another. Some of these choices, the game designer(s) might want to change after publication, if they could. And over time, a game designer might make different choices for rules simply because tastes/trends change. For these reasons it makes no sense, to me, to adhere strictly to every rule in an RPG set.

Jeffro Johnson goes back to rules before AD&D (first edition as we tend to call it), or rules intended to substitute, such as Moldvay-B/X-Basic rules. So Jeffro says thieves must have d4 for hit points, because the rules he loves specify that.

I’m much more willing to vary from the original rules in order to make the game better (from my point of view, of course), so my thieves/rogues have d6s, can use bows (Robin Hood), and vary in other ways from the original rules. My 1e clerics can choose one of three types of sharp weapons (two-handers, one-handed swords, bow and arrow) and use those weapons as well as the blunt ones - because it’s better for the game. They can memorize twice as many spells as they can cast. And so on.

But a GM can make his game Old or New regardless of the actual rules. Some rules make it easier to tell stories (e.g. FATE). Simpler rulesets in general give the GM more freedom to tell stories, as there are fewer rules to get in the way of the story, and likely less “rules lawyering”.
[h=3]GM Role[/h] In terms of the two major conceptions of the GM’s role, the GM as rules arbiter and the GM as a sort of god, which works better for the storytelling that’s part of New School? I think rules arbiter is much less effective, as the rules can get in the way of the story. GM as rules arbiter tends to go with long rulesets (which more likely need an arbiter), and rules-heavy games get in the way of story-telling. Rules-light games ought to be better for GM storytelling. Players who don’t want the GM to control the story may prefer rules-heavy RPGs. These are tendencies, of course, not certainties, and likely there are counterexamples.
[h=3]Pacing[/h] Pacing is a big part of the difference between the two extremes. Good pacing (in novel and film terms) calls for alternating lows and highs, to make the highs that much more effective.

Old School recognizes that there will be not-very-exciting or even unpleasant/horrific adventures, to go with super-exciting and terrifically rewarding adventures. New School “evens it out”, ensuring that nothing will be unpleasant but also effectively ensuring that nothing will be terrific – because you can’t fail. “Loot drops” are boring when every monster has a loot drop. Boatloads of treasure become boring when you always get boatloads of treasure. “No one ever gets in serious trouble” is boring. In other words, the New abandons good pacing in favor of enabling “no negative consequences” or just “no losses”. You can certainly do that, but it sounds tedious to me.
[h=3]Non-RPGs, too[/h] This Old/New dichotomy can be seen clearly in board and card games as well. Such games have moved away from the traditional direct competition, and from high levels of player interaction, to parallel competitions that are usually puzzles (i.e., have always-correct solutions) rather than games (which do not have such solutions). Each player pursues his own puzzle down one of the "Multiple Paths to Victory," that is, following one of several always-correct solutions provided by the designer.

"As an Action RPG, the best thing about Torchlight II is the way loot, skill choices, and chance bubble over into a fountain of light and treasure at the whiff of a right-click, every single time, for as long as you can keep going." PC Gamer magazine, 2012
​

We see the difference in video games, too, but for commercial reasons those games have gone far into the New. To begin with, computers lend themselves to avatar-based "experiences" (forms of story) rather than games. Also, computer games of all types are far into reward (or at least, lack of negative consequences), having left consequence (Old School) behind some time ago. In other words, you’re rewarded for playing while not having to worry/take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions. (There are exceptions of course.) In the extreme, players will blame the game if they don’t succeed. If you make a free to play video game (a very common type now), practically speaking you MUST make it easy and positive so that players will stick around long enough to decide to provide you with some revenue via in-game micro-transactions.

(Editor's Note: We decided to add in Lew's third article, below, so it puts all of his points in context; please see my comment below).

Here are some Old/New School differences in actual gameplay.
[h=3]Strategy Over Tactics[/h] Military strategy (what you do before battle is joined) is de-emphasized in opposite-of-old-school games. Why?

• Good strategy requires planning; tactics can become standardized, rule of thumb, easier
• If the GM is telling a story, he or she wants players to follow the script, not devise their own ways of doing things overall (which is what strategy is all about)

Tactical games, on the other hand, are all about immediate fighting, what 4^th edition D&D was built for, what many computer RPGs are built for because computers are at their best in tactics and worst in strategy.
[h=3]Hand-Holding[/h] Old School games are often about exploration, about finding/identifying the objectives. And recognizing when something about a location/opponent makes it too dangerous to take on right now.

Something like a secret door becomes a “dirty GM trick” instead of a challenge for the dungeon-delving skills of the party. “New” games are about being guided by the game (GM) to where the fight is, then fighting, then getting the loot. (You recognize the description of typical computer RPGs, especially MMO RPGs?)

In other words, the GM “holds the hands” of the players, guiding them rather than leaving them to their own devices. Every GM does this on occasion, but it’s the norm in the extreme of New School.
[h=3]What’s Important in Play?[/h] In Old School, it’s the success of the party that counts, much more than the success of the individual. This is a “wartime” attitude now quite uncommon in the USA, but common amongst the Baby Boomer wargamers who originated RPGs. In the extremes of the newer school, it’s the individual that counts (e.g. as expressed in “All About Me” RPGs), not the group. This makes a huge difference in how people play the game.
[h=3]Sport or War?[/h] I talked about this in an earlier column (RPG Combat: Sport or War?). To summarize, in war everything is fair, and stratagems – “a plan or scheme, especially one used to outwit an opponent” - are the ideal. If you get in a fair fight, you’ve screwed up: fair fights are for suckers. That style puts a premium on intelligence-gathering and on strategy. Combat as sport looks for a fair fight that the players will just barely manage to win, often as managed by the GM. Combat as War is less heroic, but it’s a lot more practical from the adventurer’s point of view. And for me, a lot more believable. If a fight is truly fair, you’re going to lose 50% of the time, in the long run. That’s not survivable.
[h=3]Nuance[/h] There are lots of “in-betweens”, of course:

• What about a campaign where the party can suffer a total or near wipeout, but someone has left a wish with a reliable soul who can wish away the disaster. They can fail (lose), but most or all of them will survive.
• What about the “All About Me” style I wrote about recently? Usually, there is no possibility of failure, but a GM could put a little failure into the equation if they wished.
• What about the campaign where everyone knows their character is doomed to die, likely before reaching (in AD&D terms) 10^th or 11^th level? Then glory (and a glorious death) often becomes the objective.
• What about the campaign where characters normally survive, but when someone does something egregiously stupid or foolish, the character can die?
• You can hand-hold players to the point of combat, and still make that combat deadly.

RPGs can accommodate all kinds of tastes. But we don’t have to like every kind, do we?

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!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Mistakes?! If I said that how you play the game is a hidebound power-trip to force players through your railroad adventure while mocking them for not guessing the right wall to search for the win button , and did so in an ENW endorsed article, would you consider that a "mistake?!"

I would make a post explaining why you were wrong. And I would probably argue that you should expose yourself to more old school gamers. I'd still try to have a productive conversation.

Dear god, you're as ignorant as lewpuls on the topic, and, instead of listening to this entire thread outlining the problems, you've decided to label them "mistakes" and continue being ignorant. I've had good interactions with you on the past, but labeling outright lies that malign other people's play preferences as "mistakes" is bottom of that barrel.

I was responding to your statement about 'glaring errors' and used a less loaded synonym. I am not ignorant of this subject. I've been playing RPGs for decades, and have been playing with a number of different kinds of groups and in several different play styles. That said, I don't pretend I am a genius or one of the smartest people here. But I am not ignorant, and I am not an idiot. If you think that a person's reaction to an article like this gives you that kind of window into their world experience, I don't really know what to say. What is more, I am not particularly invested in the idea of convincing anyone I am knowledgeable about something as niche as an RPG play style. I think you are reading way more into my responses than is warranted.

And again, for the last time, if you want to raise specific criticisms of the article (which admittedly may have already been raised here but I missed because I have been fielding responses like yours), feel free to do so. I will happily discuss with you my thoughts on any such point, say whether I agree/disagree, and not attack you personally if we happen to disagree. I am here for discussion, to give my point of view, but also get other peoples points of view.

 

[Umbran]

Dear god, you're as ignorant as lewpuls on the topic...

I'm sorry, but you are making this about the speaker, rather than their position, and that's too far. Back off, please.

 

[Umbran]

I thought the article was perfectly good quality.

Fine. We disagree.

What I meant though was, on a gaming site, that has featured articles, I expect a range of quality, style and approach to writing.

I do, too. I also expect a featured article to meet some rather basic standards of quality that these three pieces do not meet.

Frankly, it is a bit refreshing, because so much writing online these days sounds exactly the same

Frankly, if he cannot be "refreshing" without being inaccurate and insulting, he probably shouldn't be writing the piece. If he requires false statements to make his position sound good, his position... isn't good. It may be comforting to people who have similar likes and dislikes, but we are not here to present comforting lies, are we?

I think a sincere gaming point of view was expressed.

Yes. And if you very sincerely believe that the Earth is flat, people on geology websites will get peeved if your writing on the subject winds up on the front page.

The internet is *loaded* with people who very sincerely express points of view that are factually inaccurate, poorly researched, fit their preferred narrative despite solid evidence to the contrary, or are otherwise disengaged from how the world actually works. These are not things we should embrace.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes. And if you very sincerely believe that the Earth is flat, people on geology websites will get peeved if your writing on the subject winds up on the front page.

The internet is *loaded* with people who very sincerely express points of view that are factually inaccurate, poorly researched, fit their preferred narrative despite solid evidence to the contrary, or are otherwise disengaged from how the world actually works. These are not things we should embrace.

But we are talking about styles of playing a game, not matters if life and death, or something as objective as the shape of the earth. When people are assessing playstyles like old school and new school, people are often going from limited perspectives. It is very difficult to take a list of eight things and say this is objectively the old school way or the new school way. My sense is he has encountered what he’s described in the context of disagreements over playstyle. We could get into the specifics. Like I said I am happy to engage particular points about the article that are not simply ‘its bad’. Especially around old and new school, there are strong disagreements, misconceptions, etc. I think it is okay to have articles like this presenting POVs on old school, new school, character focused play, adventure paths, narrative play, etc. I don’t want articles dripping with venom, but not do I want opinions that are watered down out of a sense of trying to be diplomatic. I like that I know where this writer really stands. If I was in more disagreement with the author on playstyles I’d appreciate it even more because it tells me what his real biases are.

I do appologice for typos. On iPhone.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm sorry, but you are making this about the speaker, rather than their position, and that's too far. Back off, please.

Hasty word choice. I meant 'not knowledgeable about the topic' and picked a loaded term. Backed off.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But we are talking about styles of playing a game, not matters if life and death, or something as objective as the shape of the earth.

Right, it's not that important, why are you upset he's insulted you?

When people are assessing playstyles like old school and new school, people are often going from limited perspectives.

Ah, okay, the 'other people are equally ill-informed and prejudiced' defense. Nope.

It is very difficult to take a list of eight things and say this is objectively the old school way or the new school way.

Didn't stop lewpuls, though, did it?

My sense is he has encountered what he’s described in the context of disagreements over playstyle. We could get into the specifics. Like I said I am happy to engage particular points about the article that are not simply ‘its bad’.

No, no, no. When people say 'this article is bad because it is basicly made-up slanders about a playstyle' you don't get to say, 'I'll only listen to your specific points about the topic.' You can't insist that people actually engage false and insulting slanders as if they have merit and deserve a detailed discussion on merits. The article is factually wrong in many places about NS playstyles. This thread, and the last, are chock full of good discussion on the topic that people brought while debunking the articles. Ignoring that and continuing to insist that you, YOU, will only engage if people bring YOU individualized specific complaints is as dismissive as the original article. I'm not here to feed you arguments in the manner you think this article deserves. Engage the posts already here.

Instead, though, you really seem to want to defend this article. To that end, I understand your approach -- by insisting on particularized examples from the article, you force the discussion to be rooted in the article, thereby proving it's worth discussion. Bollocks, I say.

Especially around old and new school, there are strong disagreements, misconceptions, etc. I think it is okay to have articles like this presenting POVs on old school, new school, character focused play, adventure paths, narrative play, etc. I don’t want articles dripping with venom, but not do I want opinions that are watered down out of a sense of trying to be diplomatic. I like that I know where this writer really stands. If I was in more disagreement with the author on playstyles I’d appreciate it even more because it tells me what his real biases are.

You may not intend it, but this reads as, "I do not think it's possible to discuss OS vs NS without rancor and insults, so insisting that such discussions be diplomatic and absent such is pointless." If you cannot discuss a topic diplomatically, YOU SHOULD NOT BE PAID TO DO SO. As many have pointed out, if this wasn't an article, it wouldn't pass muster with the rules.

There's been plenty of non-rancorous discussion on this topic (and plenty of rancorous, to be fair). It is not out-of-bounds to expect that paid content on this site should be of the former and not the latter.

 

[Arilyn]

There are three loud groups in the hobby, which contribute almost nothing to rpg conversations. There is the pretentious "serious" roleplayer group which dismisses D&D as a board game for murder hoboes, the "hardcore" tactical group which dismisses "serious" roleplayers as fluffy wannabe drama students, and the "old schoolers" who lament the hobby being taken over by the "young folk" who don't like challenges and want everything handed over for free. It's fine to have strong opinions, to be passionate, but not to be an obnoxious and/or pretentious know-it-all, who can't even be bothered to understand their whole hobby, beyond their favoured niche.


Lewpuls is a game designer, and his articles have been accepted on this site, but unfortunately, he is regularly coming off as one of those loud voices, which are not furthering the conversation, other than to get a lot of offended responses, and posts which do better at engendering a proper debate. I can hope that he'll take these criticisms to heart, and submit better researched, more knowledgeable articles in the future. He's a rpg writer, so it's incumbent on him to have knowledge about the whole hobby, not just D&D, and to really understand the varying playstyles, and not make simplistic assumptions.

This is why the article even offends players who lean toward "old school"play. It's the same reason that I get offended by the pretentious role playing group, even though that is my preferred style, the roleplaying, not the pretension. Nobody wants champions of their preferred style to sound lame and ill informed. If Lewpuls really wants to convince us of the merits of "old school", he really needs to have a more thorough understanding of the "competition," and not just be one of those loud, extremists, who replace substance with volume.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, it's not that important, why are you upset he's insulted you?


Ah, okay, the 'other people are equally ill-informed and prejudiced' defense. Nope.


Didn't stop lewpuls, though, did it?


No, no, no. When people say 'this article is bad because it is basicly made-up slanders about a playstyle' you don't get to say, 'I'll only listen to your specific points about the topic.' You can't insist that people actually engage false and insulting slanders as if they have merit and deserve a detailed discussion on merits. The article is factually wrong in many places about NS playstyles. This thread, and the last, are chock full of good discussion on the topic that people brought while debunking the articles. Ignoring that and continuing to insist that you, YOU, will only engage if people bring YOU individualized specific complaints is as dismissive as the original article. I'm not here to feed you arguments in the manner you think this article deserves. Engage the posts already here.

Instead, though, you really seem to want to defend this article. To that end, I understand your approach -- by insisting on particularized examples from the article, you force the discussion to be rooted in the article, thereby proving it's worth discussion. Bollocks, I say.



You may not intend it, but this reads as, "I do not think it's possible to discuss OS vs NS without rancor and insults, so insisting that such discussions be diplomatic and absent such is pointless." If you cannot discuss a topic diplomatically, YOU SHOULD NOT BE PAID TO DO SO. As many have pointed out, if this wasn't an article, it wouldn't pass muster with the rules.

There's been plenty of non-rancorous discussion on this topic (and plenty of rancorous, to be fair). It is not out-of-bounds to expect that paid content on this site should be of the former and not the latter.

Obviously we are not going to agree on the article, so I think there is little point in either of us beating the dead horse on that topic. I think we just have an honest disagreement. I feel like you are reading into everything I say and casting it in the worst possible light (and just an FYI, I wasn't upset at Umbran at all in that post, I was just pointing out what I believed to be a real distinction worth mentioning). If you, if Umbran, and if anyone else,, doesn't like the article, think it is stupid, and/or ignorant, it isn't really a problem to me. You guys are free to have your own views on it and I won't read too deeply into that.

But I am genuinely interested in you giving me specifics because I wanted to see where the actual points of agreement, disagreement are, and see where either of us have room to expand our view. People just keep telling me the article is bad because it is ignorant and it gets things wrong. That is fine if you feel that way, but explain to me where you think it is wrong. This isn't a trap. I am not skeptical of your position, I just want to see what parts of the article you are even focusing on. Also, very importantly, I never said I agreed with everything the article said. It is entirely possible the parts that are bothering you, are parts I agree with. If is something we disagree about, I'd like to explore the issue and see if I am mistaken about something. There is a lot in that article, so it could be so many different things, and I sincerely do not know which ones in particular are bothering you.

I defended the article when Umbran said it shouldn't be on the site, simply to add a voice to the conversation, because I felt it was a good article that fit the needs of a gaming forum. But I am not hellbent on defending everything about it. Like I said, I like that it started a conversation and and would love to have one on the topic. But I've been kind of stuck here defending my statement that I liked the article.

I do believe we can have a discussion about this without rancor. I am not very interested in flame wars. I am interested in a spirited and honest conversation. I don't want people to hold back their opinions. I think people can give their honest views on styles of play while having a productive conversation. I used to believe differently. I used to emphasize polite and civil conversation. I still prefer that as my own approach, but I've come to value more and more people giving me their real opinions on things, rather than cloaking them in another critique. Even here, with you, I admit I am getting a bit irritated, but at least I know where I stand with you as a poster.

I routinely go into places where the overall viewpoint is outside my comfort zone because I like to get information from the horse's mouth on topics. I am more into old school, but I post at places like Story-Games.com as well, and I come here where there is more of a mainstream viewpoint, in part to check my assumptions. If you make a good point, I will grant it. I am not interested in trying to score points against you or something.

 

[Arilyn]

Obviously we are not going to agree on the article, so I think there is little point in either of us beating the dead horse on that topic. I think we just have an honest disagreement. I feel like you are reading into everything I say and casting it in the worst possible light (and just an FYI, I wasn't upset at Umbran at all in that post, I was just pointing out what I believed to be a real distinction worth mentioning). If you, if Umbran, and if anyone else,, doesn't like the article, think it is stupid, and/or ignorant, it isn't really a problem to me. You guys are free to have your own views on it and I won't read too deeply into that.

But I am genuinely interested in you giving me specifics because I wanted to see where the actual points of agreement, disagreement are, and see where either of us have room to expand our view. People just keep telling me the article is bad because it is ignorant and it gets things wrong. That is fine if you feel that way, but explain to me where you think it is wrong. This isn't a trap. I am not skeptical of your position, I just want to see what parts of the article you are even focusing on. Also, very importantly, I never said I agreed with everything the article said. It is entirely possible the parts that are bothering you, are parts I agree with. If is something we disagree about, I'd like to explore the issue and see if I am mistaken about something. There is a lot in that article, so it could be so many different things, and I sincerely do not know which ones in particular are bothering you.

I defended the article when Umbran said it shouldn't be on the site, simply to add a voice to the conversation, because I felt it was a good article that fit the needs of a gaming forum. But I am not hellbent on defending everything about it. Like I said, I like that it started a conversation and and would love to have one on the topic. But I've been kind of stuck here defending my statement that I liked the article.

I do believe we can have a discussion about this without rancor. I am not very interested in flame wars. I am interested in a spirited and honest conversation. I don't want people to hold back their opinions. I think people can give their honest views on styles of play while having a productive conversation. I used to believe differently. I used to emphasize polite and civil conversation. I still prefer that as my own approach, but I've come to value more and more people giving me their real opinions on things, rather than cloaking them in another critique. Even here, with you, I admit I am getting a bit irritated, but at least I know where I stand with you as a poster.

I routinely go into places where the overall viewpoint is outside my comfort zone because I like to get information from the horse's mouth on topics. I am more into old school, but I post at places like Story-Games.com as well, and I come here where there is more of a mainstream viewpoint, in part to check my assumptions. If you make a good point, I will grant it. I am not interested in trying to score points against you or something.

If you are looking for specific, objective critiques of the article, there have been many made on this thread. Hawkeyefan did an excellent job breaking down the article, piece by piece. I believe it's back on page three, if you missed it. It really isn't about differing viewpoints, but how a paid article needs to present itself in order to be taken seriously.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you are looking for specific, objective critiques of the article, there have been many made on this thread. Hawkeyefan did an excellent job breaking down the article, piece by piece. I believe it's back on page three, if you missed it. It really isn't about differing viewpoints, but how a paid article needs to present itself in order to be taken seriously.

Thanks. Hawkeye gives a good response in my opinion. But he also doesn't seem to question putting the article up. Instead he takes up the article point by point. He also notes it where he agrees (even if, on the whole, it seems he disagrees). I'd be curious how Hawkeye and others view the difference between old and new school play.