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!

 

[Umbran]

I think a big part of this too is the OSR has a more optimistic attitude toward Gamemasters, and trusts them to be creative enough to use and flesh out material more fully in play.

And those games usually considered New School (like Cortex+ of FATE-based systems), that have much of the content of the session generated in-flight? They *don't* trust their GMs, and they *aren't* fleshing out material in-play, even though the material didn't exist before play began?

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is entirely wrong and exposes a large lack of knowledge and experience about new school games, as GM trust and objectivity are big factors there, as well. .

I really don't like making posts like this, but feel I need to since you you keep making these broad sweeping claims and drawing assumptions about people from them. I just want to be clear here, and am not particularly concerned with convincing you that I have knowledge of anything, but I play plenty of new school games and play with a mixed crowd of people. I generally run 2-3 games a week, and I play in what games can. Just to give some example, I occasionally play in a B/X old school game, play savage worlds, and the games I currently run are usually my own which are a blend of old and new approaches. Growing up I played 1E, 2E, GURPS, Feng Shui, Basic D&D, TORG, Godlike, BESM, Tales from the Floating Vagabond, etc. In recent years I played 3E through its duration, played lots of Savage Worlds, Doctor Who Adventures in Space and Time, and had a number of one shots or mini-campaigns of games for things like Gumshoe, Adventures in Middle Earth (using 5E), Hillfolk, etc. I have plenty of experience outside the OSR world. Not saying I know everything, as you can easily play a game and know little about it. But I have plenty of experience with all kinds of playstyles. If you don't like my opinions that is fine. But you keep calling me ignorant or lacking knowledge, when I think it is pretty clear that isn't case (I just disagree with you on some things). Of course, it is still entirely possible I am wrong about some of these details. It is entirely possible to be incorrect without being an idiot.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think mainstream play might be a better label than new school. But I do think there is something real here. Though honestly, I use the term new school all the time, and usually all I mean by that is 'the current and most prevalent style of play I encounter'. I will say I can understand where the OP is coming from, because when you do things more old school, you do often bump into people who have expectations that are more mainstream and current, and often it seems to come down to things like 'where is the story?', 'where are the planned encounters?', 'where are the character arcs' etc. I don't know that you can define a whole style of play this way, but I could easily compose a list of the most common issues that come up for players who are more accustomed to playing things like recent editions of D&D and Pathfinder. I will say, it isn't usually that big of a deal when it does arise. And I typically do try to cater to the tastes of all at the table as much as possible. But I think it just represents a divide that exists. Some people never had the problems or frustrations I had with gaming in the mid-2000s. I was getting very frustrated with how things felt too planned out, not spontaneous enough and too structured around things like encounter levels and other things that were the norm at the time. Not everyone had these frustrations, but if you did have them, and you went back to older editions or found the OSR, you started developing a whole different set of expectations from play than the mainstream of the hobby. And you often found these expectations led to a much more satisfying result. So when you bring in someone who just never had these issues, or is a newcomer to the hobby and isn't even aware of things like the OSR or older editions, then it can be jarring for them. What I try to do is establish if this is a person who would like my style of play once they understand it, or establish if they have genuinely different taste and expectations than I do. If the latter, I'll explain that I can only really run games in the way that I find manageable, but I will try to accommodate them. I am fine doing this with other styles as well.

Missed this one. No, I'm pretty sure describing NS as mainstream is wrong. Many of the champions of NS gaming on these boards will tell you that it's incredibly frustrating having to defend your play style against the mainstream on a constant basis.

5e is mainstream, and it's more OS in flavor than NS, although it has some elements of each. In reality, the NS elements of 5e are probably the weakest and least integrated.

Again, for the record, here are the general traits I see as OS and NS -- these are tendencies, not definitional.

OS:
* DM has exclusive control of the fictional setting and positioning, outside of specific and limited powers usually reserved for magic.
* action resolution is atomic, ie you resolve action declarations as independent rather than as part of an overall goal (climbing the wall stealthily requires both climb checks and stealth checks).
* the world is the primary focus -- characters inhabit an already built world

NS
* players share some control over fictional setting and positioning
* action resolution is goal oriented, and seeks to resolve at a gross rather than granular level
* character is the primary focus -- characters define the world as they move through it

As you can see above, some games borrow back and forth. But, 1e fits OS pretty well, while something like Blades in the Dark or FATE occupy the NS pretty well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And those games usually considered New School (like Cortex+ of FATE-based systems), that have much of the content of the session generated in-flight? They *don't* trust their GMs, and they *aren't* fleshing out material in-play, even though the material didn't exist before play began?

I think this conversation is challenging because clearly we are all walking around with a very different sense of the boundaries between old school, new school and other styles. Fate is a system I have to admit has never really connected with me, so I've never understood it well enough to comment on what it does. But my impression is it isn't the kind of game I am talking about here. In the context of the discussion, Hussar brought up how many systems now require less effort by the GM to establish on the fly rulings. I was responding to that, and I felt he hit upon a distinction I have seen.

I don't think distrust of GM authority is ubiquitous outside of old school play though. I think optimism about GMs is important to old school play, and one of the most common criticisms people in the OSR field is around whether makes for better game to approach things this way. I was responding to Hussar's post there, and his points are ones I've encountered a lot when someone is critical of the OSR or comes to an OSR table and doesn't like the experience. I think it would probably be a mistake to assume too much about new school based on this, especially since we don't really have a workable definition of new school in this thread. Often times though, when I play with or talk to players and GMs who come from a more mainstream style of play, they have big concerns about running a game that puts that much weight on the GM to always be on the ball. I am phrasing things in a way that reflects my own bias. I didn't have to frame it as a trust issue, but to me, that is how I see it when I make a game (I am trusting that GMs can handle this kind of material without lengthy explanation). Someone else might frame it as there are not enough guidelines in OSR for GMs, or as Hussar did, the OSR and Old School expect GMs to create new rules on the fly.

At the very least, faith in GM abilities, is something you see people within the OSR talking a lot about.

 

[Bedrockgames]

OS:
* DM has exclusive control of the fictional setting and positioning, outside of specific and limited powers usually reserved for magic.
* action resolution is atomic, ie you resolve action declarations as independent rather than as part of an overall goal (climbing the wall stealthily requires both climb checks and stealth checks).
* the world is the primary focus -- characters inhabit an already built world

NS
* players share some control over fictional setting and positioning
* action resolution is goal oriented, and seeks to resolve at a gross rather than granular level
* character is the primary focus -- characters define the world as they move through it
.

I think this may be the heart of the issue. This isn't how I use the term New School at all. Your definition of new school, is what I usually just call more narrative or story driven play. Games that come out of stuff like GNS or Story-Games.com and place a lot of emphasis on giving players powers that may have traditionally been with the GM. I do think there is a natural fault line between OSR style play and this style of play (though I think that is changing as time goes on).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you really need to read my posts with a more charitable lens. I am happy to engage you. But most of your responses to me lately amount to 'you are doing X, I hate X, stop doing X'. I am just giving my honest opinion here. And I am not contrasting OS GMs as good and NS GMs as bad. I was contrasting Hussar's claims about rulings over rules and my own, and pointing out that if you buy into the OS school of thought about gamings, it requires an optimistic take on peoples' ability to be good GMs. If one is more skeptical of GM authority, the style may present an issue. That doesn't mean OS games are filled with great GMs and non-OS games are filled with lousy ones. If means there is a difference in attitude and how GM quality is measured.

You were responding to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], and specifically said that post was in addition to the previous response to Aldarc where you were assigning things to OS, like layout. I'd like to read your post more charitably, but if it was about responding to Hussar's claims about rulings over rules, you might want to give a reader some indication of such rather than making it appear like you're responding to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] about what you consider OS.

Regarding my point about layout, all I can say is, as a Publisher I see OSR blogs all the time about the importance of brevity of text and the importance of putting tables in the layout so that they are easy to find and together. This is something that leaps out at you if you look at a lot of OSR products. There is an aesthetic. The aesthetic often stems from utility. And it is part of the OSR approach. Not everyone does it. But layout definitely is definitely connected with the styles of play. All you have to do is look at the way many narrative games do layout, the way mainstream games do layout, and the way many OSR games do layout, and you'll see striking differences that are about reaching their intended audience and, often, about presenting the material in a way that is functional for the intended play style.

You need to establish how layout relates to a style of play. How does chapter arrangement relate to style of play? How does chart design relate to style of play? Take the Blades in the Dark manual, it's concise, well laid out in understandable fashion, and includes charts and reference material at the back of the book, well organized and grouped. Is this OS? No, it very much is not.

When you say that book layout influences style of play, you really need to bring more to this than you have. It's an extraordinary claim, you need at least some proof.

Keep in mind as well. In the OSR, a lot of times, the layout guy and the designer are one and the same. And even if they are not, the designer often has a lot of input when it comes to how tables will be handled. If you are doing freelance, sure, you have to abide by whatever guidelines they give you. But many OSR publishers want brevity of text. That is pretty common thing to see.

Yes, that never happens in NS games. :|

 

[Lanefan]

You managed to fisk my post without successfully debating the central point (it was about pacing). I'll not engage the gish gallop here since it doesn't engage that point but just throws up a lot of chaff at the details.

Whatever.

As an example of this, you spend a bit of time arguing that the overall goal may still be threatened by the DM asking for more atomic (definition below) action checks while ignoring how that reinforces my point about pacing (and how pacing isn't failure/success). Not to mention that in OS gaming, the actual overall goal is not often discussed; players declare atomic actions in series that are resolved one by one instead of larger goal/approach declarations because that's how OS mechanics are organized: at the atomic action level. Because of this, an action declaration can be adjudicated to cause the goal to become unobtainable without ever being declared, leading to blocking rather than moving the fiction. The game grinds because the players now have to figure out a new chain of actions, resolved atomically, and the fiction pauses while they do so.

On failure (or repeated failures) yes, which is consistent with how it'd play out in real life: if this path is blocked, you either have to find another path or start beating down the walls.

Contrasted with NS play tgat aims to resolve the goal rather than the atomic actions, for good or bad, thus continuing to keep the fiction moving and the gas oedal of pacing on the floor. Because pacing is about time, not success/failure -- a failure can still keep the pressure and pace up.

This isn't to say the OS gaming is worse or NS is better. NS gets this pacing bump at a cost: it often applies meta mechanics to give more control to players over success/fail because the pacing engine is revved higher. It also loses the process sim feel, which can be something enjoyable.

There's other costs as well, mostly to do with loss of points-of-decision for the player/PC and an associated risk of glossing over or skipping elements or options that might, if made available, be or become very relevant.

There are tradeoffs in systems to achieve play goals. To me, this is the biggest missing part of these discussions: not what belongs to which style or which style does this thing better, but what do players want out of play and how does a given game/style give it?

Agreed, and I think a lot of this discussion (other than those who are just complaining about how the article is written without adding much else) is circling around this in kind of a pre-discussion stage: before determining what style can give what to which player we first are trying to define what each style is and where the differences between them - in general terms - lie.

*Here atomic actions means action declarations are presented as small chunks of discreete interaction and resolved independently. Frex, to climb a wall, you'll make multiple climb checks based on distance climbed. If you wanted to climb the example wall but quietly to boot, you'd have a seperate check for stealth because that's "atomically" different from climbing.

Exactly.

It's a question of desired level of granularity in both declaration and resolution.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, I'm pretty sure describing NS as mainstream is wrong. Many of the champions of NS gaming on these boards will tell you that it's incredibly frustrating having to defend your play style against the mainstream on a constant basis.

It is possible. I think gaming tends to have a lot of inconsistent terminology. Different forums and communities use words differently. And it is always feasible I've misapplied a term without realizing it. I've always generally used new school to mean mainstream gaming trends post 2000 or so. Maybe that isn't how most people use it (though I feel like I've certainly seen it used a lot the way I mean it). Like I said in my other post, for the things you list off as new school, I generally refer to that as narrative, story or GNS based stuff.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I really don't like making posts like this, but feel I need to since you you keep making these broad sweeping claims and drawing assumptions about people from them. I just want to be clear here, and am not particularly concerned with convincing you that I have knowledge of anything, but I play plenty of new school games and play with a mixed crowd of people. I generally run 2-3 games a week, and I play in what games can. Just to give some example, I occasionally play in a B/X old school game, play savage worlds, and the games I currently run are usually my own which are a blend of old and new approaches. Growing up I played 1E, 2E, GURPS, Feng Shui, Basic D&D, TORG, Godlike, BESM, Tales from the Floating Vagabond, etc. In recent years I played 3E through its duration, played lots of Savage Worlds, Doctor Who Adventures in Space and Time, and had a number of one shots or mini-campaigns of games for things like Gumshoe, Adventures in Middle Earth (using 5E), Hillfolk, etc. I have plenty of experience outside the OSR world. Not saying I know everything, as you can easily play a game and know little about it. But I have plenty of experience with all kinds of playstyles. If you don't like my opinions that is fine. But you keep calling me ignorant or lacking knowledge, when I think it is pretty clear that isn't case (I just disagree with you on some things). Of course, it is still entirely possible I am wrong about some of these details. It is entirely possible to be incorrect without being an idiot.

Fine, but if you got 'idiot' from my posts, that's on you. I don't think you're an idiot, I just think your incorrect and unknowledgable about NS games. Also, that layout and good DMing are not inimical to either playstyle.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whatever.

Stopped reading.