Have you ever sat around reading some people's ideas of what "old school" is and wondered what the hell they were talking about?
Sometimes, after reading descriptions of what it means to be "old school," I think my relationship to the "old school" is completely coincidental. I came in as 1983 was dying fast, so maybe this is true.
For example, I hate to house-rule. I still do it, because no game is perfect, but I use BFRPG as my game of choice because it is as perfect as any I've seen, with few holes, and I don't have to mess with it much. Many of the "changes" I make are actually suggested in the back of the book. I still think that OD&D, AD&D, B/X, BECMI, RC, OSRIC, BFRPG, LL, S&W, S&W WB, OAOASAYCTO (Or Any Other Alphabet Soup Acronym You Can Think Of) are the same damn game, and I can't help but be perplexed at people who act like there's a sharp distinction between D&D and AD&D, like there's a line that can't be crossed or some essence will be lost. It's all the same shit, with different flavored peanuts here and there. But some people are adamant that this is "old school," that isn't, and that's just total new school thinking, even if it came out in 197whatever.
And I hate being told that "old school" = "houseruling." There's a reason that I really don't like making rules decisions (as opposed to setting decisions - I love those, it's my setting!) is because I'm supposed to be the impartial referee! I'm not a storyteller or player enabler. I am supposed to be impartial, right? It's difficult to do that if the rules themselves don't say much, and it's unfair to the players if there isn't a common baseline that we all agree to work from. "Referee" or "Dungeon Master" or "Game Master" shouldn't equal "dick," it doesn't equal "god," and the best defense against that is the "rule of law," if you will... the damn game rules. That's also why I make my rolls out in the open. As far as I'm concerned, the rules we agree on when play begins are THE LAW, more than anyone at the table. My judgement for situations not covered by the rules shouldn't be based on "making shit up," it should be based on reasonable extrapolation of the rules already present. This allows players to also offer their input, which is always a good thing. "Hmmm, that's not covered here, but I think this rule is analogous. What do you think?" Of course, as referee, I have the final say... but it's just being a dick to insist on having the first, last, and every say on rulings. If you insist that everything is malleable, I don't understand the point of playing any particular game anyway. So in order to do my job, I need rules that will work and support me without needing to mess with them.
There is also a weird tendency to think of "old school" as "nonsensical." Arduin, Encounter Critical (yeah, I know...), balrogs as player characters mentioned in OD&D... while I think these point out the possibilities inherent in "old school" philosophy, I think they have also created a mindset of "everything goes," and that's just crap when it comes to the individual game table. The abundance of random tables in "old school" products seems to support this "anything can happen" attitude, even if the tables themselves have logical entries. On one hand, randomness supports the idea that the referee is impartial.
If a referee decides his campaign is going to be based on the Roman Empire with appropriate equipment and nothing outside of it, that's not a restriction, it's simply having a focus... but the important thing is that's a decision made at a table. This focus allows "old school" play to happen. You want imaginative, non-rules based, yet non-farcical solutions to challenges? Present a coherent setting that allows the players to think of the world as a place and not just a convenient backdrop for the action to happen, and you get that. I know this is pure preference on my own part, but... "You are there, now act like it!" works better when there can be taken seriously. All that wacky stuff is one step away from killer bunnies and knights who demand shrubberies before passage will be granted.
Traditional D&D combat is an abstraction. A roll to hit is not a swing of the sword, and taking damage doesn't mean you're physically injured. This is why "called shots" and "combat maneuvers" are pretty silly under such a system, and why I think the feats and tactical combat focus of later editions completely miss the point. The entire "I roll... hit... I roll... miss," isn't so exciting by itself, but since combat is A- Not the point of the game, and B- Highly abstracted, I don't think it's a problem. Traditional D&D's combat goes by quickly. I often don't bother with turning these rolls into description - I'm not interested in the process of combat, I'm interested in its results. And creative maneuvers given by players in combat... well, if it changes the dynamics of a situation ("We three pull the giant rug out from under the orcs!") then it can mean something. "I jump from the table and come crashing down on my foe!" is just the kind of action we should assume is happening in the abstracted combat procedures anyway - no bonus.
And this abstraction is also why "save or die" effects make sense. Maybe the damage that fighter is doing to you isn't physical... maybe it's just your luck running out as you continually dodge his blade. But that giant spider either injected its venom into you, or it didn't. The saving throw isn't resisting an effect, it's avoiding it. If the giant spider hit you, and you make your save, then the "hit" wasn't physical after all. Unless you're a dwarf or something with a save bonus against poison.
Yeah, it hurts to think about it a bit, but that's what happens when you think of an abstract system in concrete terms.
This abstraction is also why D&D's armor class system makes sense as damage avoidance rather than soaking up damage. A "hit" doesn't even necessarily mean "a hit" in real-life terms, so it would make absolutely no sense for armor to subtract from damage done.
This is actually where AD&D falls down hard compared to other versions of D&D. It increases the length of the abstracted combat round to one minute, so you'd think things would be quite abstract indeed. But then you also have weapon vs AC type tables, weapon speed, weapon length, segmented initiative making precise casting times rather important... it seems confused in its intentions.
Here's an example between "new" and "old" "school:" This and this are no different in intent: Provide level-appropriate rewards. The critical difference is in how they are presented. The older supplement is treated as a completely ignorable guideline, the newer rules are treated as THE WAY THINGS ARE and codifies a universal setting for the game. If a referee looked at the old thing and decided, "That doesn't fit my campaign at all," then his game will look different and the rules will still support it fully. If the referee looks at the new thing and decides, "No way!" then there are consequences that need to be dealt with up and down the system. (That the older supplement's treasure is dependent on its guardian and/or location, and not who finds it also helps... I'm breaking The LotFP Promise all over the place, aren't I?) And that's the reason I can't deal with the latter editions of D&D, even independent of whether they should be called "D&D" or not. I mean, you would think that by my "rules" rant above that I would love me some 3.x, but it de-abstracts combat, and it codifies way, way too much about more than just the rules... it codifies the world it inhabits as well. And that's my job to do.
Classifications of RPGs shouldn't be divided between ages or schools. It's ridiculous when people try to throw "all that Forge crap" into one category, and it's ridiculous when people try to say "old school" like it's some sort of badge of honor all by itself to be old, and perhaps a bit underdeveloped. They should be divided between "good" and "bad," and a good place to decide the location of that dividing line is this: Does this game/supplement/whatever act as a springboard for creativity and is it readily customizable and intended to be extensively expanded upon, as written, and placed in your game, or is it designed to replace your personal creativity with something from the factory and act as a time saver for referees on-the-go?
Sometimes, after reading descriptions of what it means to be "old school," I think my relationship to the "old school" is completely coincidental. I came in as 1983 was dying fast, so maybe this is true.
For example, I hate to house-rule. I still do it, because no game is perfect, but I use BFRPG as my game of choice because it is as perfect as any I've seen, with few holes, and I don't have to mess with it much. Many of the "changes" I make are actually suggested in the back of the book. I still think that OD&D, AD&D, B/X, BECMI, RC, OSRIC, BFRPG, LL, S&W, S&W WB, OAOASAYCTO (Or Any Other Alphabet Soup Acronym You Can Think Of) are the same damn game, and I can't help but be perplexed at people who act like there's a sharp distinction between D&D and AD&D, like there's a line that can't be crossed or some essence will be lost. It's all the same shit, with different flavored peanuts here and there. But some people are adamant that this is "old school," that isn't, and that's just total new school thinking, even if it came out in 197whatever.
And I hate being told that "old school" = "houseruling." There's a reason that I really don't like making rules decisions (as opposed to setting decisions - I love those, it's my setting!) is because I'm supposed to be the impartial referee! I'm not a storyteller or player enabler. I am supposed to be impartial, right? It's difficult to do that if the rules themselves don't say much, and it's unfair to the players if there isn't a common baseline that we all agree to work from. "Referee" or "Dungeon Master" or "Game Master" shouldn't equal "dick," it doesn't equal "god," and the best defense against that is the "rule of law," if you will... the damn game rules. That's also why I make my rolls out in the open. As far as I'm concerned, the rules we agree on when play begins are THE LAW, more than anyone at the table. My judgement for situations not covered by the rules shouldn't be based on "making shit up," it should be based on reasonable extrapolation of the rules already present. This allows players to also offer their input, which is always a good thing. "Hmmm, that's not covered here, but I think this rule is analogous. What do you think?" Of course, as referee, I have the final say... but it's just being a dick to insist on having the first, last, and every say on rulings. If you insist that everything is malleable, I don't understand the point of playing any particular game anyway. So in order to do my job, I need rules that will work and support me without needing to mess with them.
There is also a weird tendency to think of "old school" as "nonsensical." Arduin, Encounter Critical (yeah, I know...), balrogs as player characters mentioned in OD&D... while I think these point out the possibilities inherent in "old school" philosophy, I think they have also created a mindset of "everything goes," and that's just crap when it comes to the individual game table. The abundance of random tables in "old school" products seems to support this "anything can happen" attitude, even if the tables themselves have logical entries. On one hand, randomness supports the idea that the referee is impartial.
If a referee decides his campaign is going to be based on the Roman Empire with appropriate equipment and nothing outside of it, that's not a restriction, it's simply having a focus... but the important thing is that's a decision made at a table. This focus allows "old school" play to happen. You want imaginative, non-rules based, yet non-farcical solutions to challenges? Present a coherent setting that allows the players to think of the world as a place and not just a convenient backdrop for the action to happen, and you get that. I know this is pure preference on my own part, but... "You are there, now act like it!" works better when there can be taken seriously. All that wacky stuff is one step away from killer bunnies and knights who demand shrubberies before passage will be granted.
Traditional D&D combat is an abstraction. A roll to hit is not a swing of the sword, and taking damage doesn't mean you're physically injured. This is why "called shots" and "combat maneuvers" are pretty silly under such a system, and why I think the feats and tactical combat focus of later editions completely miss the point. The entire "I roll... hit... I roll... miss," isn't so exciting by itself, but since combat is A- Not the point of the game, and B- Highly abstracted, I don't think it's a problem. Traditional D&D's combat goes by quickly. I often don't bother with turning these rolls into description - I'm not interested in the process of combat, I'm interested in its results. And creative maneuvers given by players in combat... well, if it changes the dynamics of a situation ("We three pull the giant rug out from under the orcs!") then it can mean something. "I jump from the table and come crashing down on my foe!" is just the kind of action we should assume is happening in the abstracted combat procedures anyway - no bonus.
And this abstraction is also why "save or die" effects make sense. Maybe the damage that fighter is doing to you isn't physical... maybe it's just your luck running out as you continually dodge his blade. But that giant spider either injected its venom into you, or it didn't. The saving throw isn't resisting an effect, it's avoiding it. If the giant spider hit you, and you make your save, then the "hit" wasn't physical after all. Unless you're a dwarf or something with a save bonus against poison.
Yeah, it hurts to think about it a bit, but that's what happens when you think of an abstract system in concrete terms.
This abstraction is also why D&D's armor class system makes sense as damage avoidance rather than soaking up damage. A "hit" doesn't even necessarily mean "a hit" in real-life terms, so it would make absolutely no sense for armor to subtract from damage done.
This is actually where AD&D falls down hard compared to other versions of D&D. It increases the length of the abstracted combat round to one minute, so you'd think things would be quite abstract indeed. But then you also have weapon vs AC type tables, weapon speed, weapon length, segmented initiative making precise casting times rather important... it seems confused in its intentions.
Here's an example between "new" and "old" "school:" This and this are no different in intent: Provide level-appropriate rewards. The critical difference is in how they are presented. The older supplement is treated as a completely ignorable guideline, the newer rules are treated as THE WAY THINGS ARE and codifies a universal setting for the game. If a referee looked at the old thing and decided, "That doesn't fit my campaign at all," then his game will look different and the rules will still support it fully. If the referee looks at the new thing and decides, "No way!" then there are consequences that need to be dealt with up and down the system. (That the older supplement's treasure is dependent on its guardian and/or location, and not who finds it also helps... I'm breaking The LotFP Promise all over the place, aren't I?) And that's the reason I can't deal with the latter editions of D&D, even independent of whether they should be called "D&D" or not. I mean, you would think that by my "rules" rant above that I would love me some 3.x, but it de-abstracts combat, and it codifies way, way too much about more than just the rules... it codifies the world it inhabits as well. And that's my job to do.
Classifications of RPGs shouldn't be divided between ages or schools. It's ridiculous when people try to throw "all that Forge crap" into one category, and it's ridiculous when people try to say "old school" like it's some sort of badge of honor all by itself to be old, and perhaps a bit underdeveloped. They should be divided between "good" and "bad," and a good place to decide the location of that dividing line is this: Does this game/supplement/whatever act as a springboard for creativity and is it readily customizable and intended to be extensively expanded upon, as written, and placed in your game, or is it designed to replace your personal creativity with something from the factory and act as a time saver for referees on-the-go?
I agree with much of what you say here, though not all of it. I would say that you came close to the real crux of the matter when you said, "The older supplement is treated as a completely ignorable guideline, the newer rules are treated as THE WAY THINGS ARE and codifies a universal setting for the game." For me, the defining characteristic of "new school" (for lack of a better term) is its preference for the universal over the particular. Where an old school RPG would say, "Here's an example of how to do X, but you might do it differently," a new school RPG would say, "Here's an example of how to do X and here's a system to allow you to do it differently, if you should want to do so (not that we recommend it)." If someone talks about "Rule 0," that's new school thinking. Rule 0 is in fact the ultimate expression of a way of thought alien to the old school.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, particularly this part:
ReplyDeleteReferee" or "Dungeon Master" or "Game Master" shouldn't equal "dick," it doesn't equal "god," and the best defense against that is the "rule of law," if you will... the damn game rules. That's also why I make my rolls out in the open. As far as I'm concerned, the rules we agree on when play begins are THE LAW, more than anyone at the table. My judgement for situations not covered by the rules shouldn't be based on "making shit up," it should be based on reasonable extrapolation of the rules already present. This allows players to also offer their input, which is always a good thing. "Hmmm, that's not covered here, but I think this rule is analogous. What do you think?" Of course, as referee, I have the final say... but it's just being a dick to insist on having the first, last, and every say on rulings.
I completely agree with this.
Good points, James. As a major proponent of Encounter Critical I think it's worth noting that many of the "nonsensical" elements are setting details rather than being codified in the rules.
ReplyDeleteThere actually is a solid rules foundation to the game, though it is deliberately left skeletal. The game certainly demands a high level of "reasonable extrapolation of the rules already present," but as you note "[t]his allows players to also offer their input, which is always a good thing." Whether or not the anything goes mash-up of pop-culture and SF/fantasy influences the game encourages speak to you or not, the rules do have a logical basis, and even a consistent basic mechanic (d%, roll low for success).
As to whether the game seeks to be "Old School" or not I won't speak for S. John Ross. But my impression is that while the game is undoubtedly a love letter to a particular era and style of play it isn't meant to define that era. Certainly I don't love the game out of a sense of nostalgia or a wish to identify with the (imaginary) past. It speaks to me right now, and in fact in my over-serious youth I might have disdained it, just as I rejected B/X for the more "adult" AD&D.
You point out that it's a matter of preference, so I don't think you mean to attack EC. I realize that Elf-Frankenstein hybrids aren't to everyone's taste. But the game scratches a strange itch some of us have, and I think it absolutely meets your criteria as a game which "act[s] as a springboard for creativity and is...readily customizable and intended to be extensively expanded upon, as written, and placed in [our] game[s]."
Finally, I think it's worth pointing out that a serious setting isn't an impregnable bulwark against restless or unimaginative players invoking Monty Python. I reccommend a quarter tax on all Grail references. Or a whiffle bat.
What is so bad about modifying combat? I personally think that it is the salt and pepper of the game. I absolutely detest folks going brain dead and just rolling dice, it is boring. It is during combat that many characters can shine, and those who seek different ways to do battle should be rewarded for their efforts. Give them a proper setting to have an epic battle, and watch the fun ensue! Yeah, tactics slow down a game, but so what. I guess the question is, if the benefits outweigh the negatives.
ReplyDeleteTake a flesh golem for instance. It's only attack is hitting. He is no different then hundreds of other creatures, which would suck if you play him like that. If you were to run into Frankenstein, and were forced into combat with him, it would be terrifying! This terror should be conveyed to the player, and you can't do that with an abstract system. Min-Max with your villain, he'll chose where the fight is, and it will benefit him the most. It is still abstract enough to have fun without being a total wargame, but allows more freedom and decision making vs. just tossing dice.
Old-school, to me, is purely coincidental. I just haven't changed my style of play! I've modified it slightly, and always test new things, but as far as delivery goes, nothing has changed.
I think that it is such a big deal right now, because for so long we weren't really aware of each other. If you look at the web, it appears that the only thing out there is 3rd edition and up. Now we know that there are still folks out there that still play the old rule sets, regardless of the lack of new content. That is cool!