The important thing to take from this section isn’t the four styles [Power-Gaming, Wargaming, Story-Telling, Role-Playing] or their labels (as there are other systems for describing this with their own labels), but the idea that there were many different styles of “old school” play back in the “old school” days – not just the single style stressed in some “old school” blogs, forums, and web sites. Don’t let those sites make you believe that you aren’t playing old school right if your campaign isn’t strongly in the wargaming camp. Most successful campaigns back in “old school” days were a mixture of all four major styles – and a heaping helping of minor styles.The above quote was taken from an excellent post on the Retro Roleplaying blog. Taking Matt Finch's justifiably well-known "Old School Primer" as its starting point, the post rightly points out that a variety of play styles appeared in the hobby as soon as it grew beyond its wargaming roots.
If there's one sin the OSR community has been largely guilty of, it's in its emphasis on player skill, high character mortality, and hex-and-dungeon-crawl-driven play - what the Retro Roleplaying article calls the Wargaming approach. I understand that this emphasis rightly grew from (a) an attempt to go back to the earliest roots of the hobby (when the Wargaming style was all there was) and (b) a reaction against the excesses of railroady "adventure paths" that have come to dominate the hobby, but it's still nice to see someone acknowledge that the roots of "story games" and character-driven roleplaying are nearly as old (and just as "legit") as save or die poison traps and character funnels.
 |
| Pic unrelated. |
Amen. Old school should be a broadly descriptive, not narrowly proscriptive. I don't think an ahistorical, purist orthodoxy is needed.
ReplyDeleteIts funny. I often talk about Dragonlance as a refreshing change of design in published adventures. But the fact is, I had been designing "story" adventures long before DL ever came out. DL simply was published design finally meeting my own aesthetic.
ReplyDeleteI agree that at times there seems to be some willful misunderstandings of history among some in the Old-School movement, but I would hardly say that this mistaken approach is found in the OSR at large. Nor is very influential, ime. There's quite a variety of opinion on the subjects of mortality, deathtraps, and 'crawling in the OSR blogosphere. One's personal bugaboos tend to be more noticeable, I think. Especially if their proponents are loud. In which case, they're simply imitating those who inspired the 'rebellion' in the first place, and aren't too useful, in my book.
ReplyDeleteFrom my view, the OSR sought a return to the roots less for historical accuracy or nostalgia reasons, but more in an attempt to re-emphasize the largely lost exploration and fantastical elements once commonplace then. A certain desire to rehabilitate the chosen style and vindicate it in the face of pervasive mockery from those who seemed to believe their way, with their rather reductive views of RPGs as either novel/movie/tv show/videogame simulators(with concomitant mechanics) or vehicles for psychological discovery(and its carrot and stick approach to forcing 'correct' player action), constituted the end all and be all of roleplaying was also present, ime. I believe you *will* find that there was also an interest in certain quarters to conduct a recreationist experiment by which they could begin again and chart a new course before the hobby became commercialized.
As an aside, playing a peon in a 'deathtrap dungeon' or 'character funnel' can be *just* as roleplay intensive as portraying a justice crusader for justice in your standard save the world epic treadmill, if not more so.(Played straight, a 'monster kitchen', can easily be a grueling experience in Survival Horror, for example.) I submit that it takes a great roleplayer to bring a short lived character's personality to the fore and make them at all memorable. Plenty of people used to do this bitd in my neck of the woods and you hear mention of this in the stories of the Old Guard during the first campaigns played by OD&Ders.
Dragonlance? Wow. Those adventures followed the novels so closely there were *landmines* on either side of that railroad! Even the Super Endless Quest Gamebook didn't allow the players to contravene the plot! Nonetheless, I know several people who are very fond of them. Though at least two confided to me that they significantly altered the experience to account for player actions to avoid inevitable frustration with the lack of options provided in the modules....
The post you linked to is quite excellent and well worth reading, imo.
I never read the DL novels. And I never ran a purchased adventure that I didn't modify substantially, be it a basic dungeon crawl or something as story oriented as DL. My sweet spot is somewhere i the middle, but DL gave me something to work with. With DL, I could basically "hack away" what I didn't want, as opposed to have to create a lot with most earlier product.
ReplyDeleteIf by 'create a lot', you mean lavish back story, and 'fleshed out' NPC motivations, I get you. There were a goodly number of people who *did* like this, as evinced by the inclusion of detailed character and setting histories from mid-80s on. My 2nd Edition modules and supplements sometimes fill up *pages* with bog-standard fantasy tropes and banal melodrama that I have to throw out anyway! But as you said, 'I could basically "hack away" what I didn't want'. I guess some would prefer to have the option, even if not exercised. For them, it's easier than the reverse. And that's cool by me as long as there's some points of interest to me in the product, and it's not all an exercise in playing out someone's rather prosaic short story or novel.
Delete'I never ran a purchased adventure that I didn't modify substantially':
This is often listed as a complaint, I've noticed. Most people seem to accept they'll have to do a *little* tweaking, but much more than that, they get upset. DL ended up with *14* modules in the 'Dragons' Series(with the later modules featuring slightly varying, though still extremely close, fidelity to the novels), make of that what you will! :-)
Full disclosure: I've read *7* Dragonlance novels. You basically *had to* back in the mid to late 80's! Along with David Eddings, Terry Brooks, Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan, Anne McCaffrey etc... Or so I plead, anyhow. :-)
"If there's one sin the OSR community has been largely guilty of, it's in its emphasis on player skill, high character mortality, and hex-and-dungeon-crawl-driven play..."
ReplyDeleteAmen! There are a lot of great RPG thinkers in the old-skool sphere, but there are also a lot of inflexible fundamentalists. Sometimes they're even the same people. As an outsider who enjoys stealing ideas from talented people, I'd like to see the OSR broaden its focus beyond emulating the Tomb Of Horrors. Maybe Gary Gygax wasn't that comfortable with well-realized characters adventuring outside dungeons, but I bet Dave Arneson was...
Thanks also for an excellent blog. I just found it recently, and I'm enjoying the archives.
Emulating Tomb of Horrors?
DeleteThis *must* be hyperbole, or you're unfamiliar with the corpus of Old-School, both of the OSR and of Gygax's work. Even Stonehell isn't like Tomb! :-)
Tomb was a one-off, almost a joke, it was *meant* to be a meat grinder to take down hyper-powerful characters and arrogant players.(See Gygax Q&A on Dragonsfoot and EnWorld, and elsewhere around the Net.) It's a module to challenge the players, and may not even be slotted into the campaign. In fact, there are pre-gens provided to take on the Tomb in case the DM and/or players don't want to put it all on the line.(Noted in the Introduction.) This adventure is by no means representative of Gygax's work in general and is not considered his best. For my money, that's D 1-3.(Descent Into the Depths.)
As to the OSR emulating Tomb, I'm not sure how you got this perception(assuming you actually *hold* this position and aren't just registering frustration with a lack of say, 'intriguing' character writeups?) considering the wide variety of individuals and tastes found on say, Jeffs Gameblog's(who has his inimitable play style) blog roll alone! D&D With Porn Stars isn't like Grognardia isn't like Hamsterish Horde, isn't like Planet Algol isn't like Daddy Grognard isn't like The Grand Tapestry isn't like The Sorceror's Skull, etc.... in terms of their preferences: save perhaps for mechanically simpler rules sets with little to no built-in roleplaying enforcement. You can have your OSR with or without Megadungeon, Monster Factory, or Weird Metal Realms, ime.
'there are also a lot of inflexible fundamentalists. Sometimes they're even the same people.':
A 'lot'? Wow. I guess you *aren't* terribly familiar with this end of the blogosphere. Once you've delved deeper into the territory, you'll see OSR people that mention playing(and even enjoying!) 3E-4E, Exalted, Trail of Cthulu, even 3:16, Hellas, Dogs In The Vineyard and even less mainstream stuff.(Some of them even used to[and maybe still do] *write* this kinda stuff!) Any inflexible fundamentalists are either being ironic or are not worth bothering with, imo.(Or, in some cases are simply venting rage generated by endless, fruitless 'discussions' with the 'New School' equivalent of your fundamentalists.)
'Maybe Gary Gygax wasn't that comfortable with well-realized characters adventuring outside dungeons, but I bet Dave Arneson was...':
Characterization is really the province of the players and GM, imo. Even 'dull' NPCs and situations can be spiced up by a competent GM and player participation. This idea was common currency bitd, as it was assumed GMs could handle portraying interesting characters. Modules were created to provide a range of experiences to be tailored by the GM to the campaign(and to make TSR money!), not a rigidly re-enforced play experience, with little to no leeway, lest the adventure be 'broken' by PC action.
Many of the earliest adventures were from tournaments, and they show it!(Literally, see the fronts of G1-G3, C1-C2, A1-A4, S1, S3-S4, et. al.) I submit that the focus on simple survival had given way to one focused on exploration and wonder by at least ~1981. You can see that with D1-D3 a series of tournament modules that are laden with possibilities for enterprising characters, and with L1 and I1, even B2!
I agree with the anonymous poster below on Gygax's books and Lejendary Adventures.
And saying Gygax isn't 'comfortable' with 'well-realized characters' sounds like one of the insults bandied about in the meaningless roll-playing/roleplaying wars circa mid 90's-mid 2000s.
This *is* an excellent blog! I second that!
I appreciate the thoughtful, considered reply. And I apologize if I insulted things that you feel strongly about. I do hyperbolize. I do also think the self-identified OSR is pretty strongly wedded to dungeons and the crawling thereof. I'd like to see more of that passion and precision applied to things other than subterranean deathtraps. Almost since the beginning, RPGs have encompassed more than exploring ruins. Different ways to play, different settings, different mechanical bases than what existed in 1977...
DeleteI'm not opposed to the past. I'm not even opposed to dungeon crawls per se. I'd just like to see the OSR take its commendable energy beyond the dungeon. An OSR take on, say, West End's Star Wars or on any edition of Champions would be pretty darn interesting.
Sorry, long response!
DeletePost 1:
To clarify my earlier responses:
By 'exploration', I meant the entire world and its races, nations, customs, flora, environment, etc... as opposed to just the crumbling bits of it.
This is one reason I love the D1-D3 Series, the Underdark is a captivating milieu.(Gygax's description of Erelhei Cinlu is quite poetic and affecting, imo.) I'm a Weird Worlds and Strange Realms kinda guy myself!
As to early campaigns, you're right. Empire of the Petal Throne was published by TSR in 1975. Glorantha hit three years later. And for the Awesome: World of Synnibarr was taking shape in `81 or so! Of course, Chaosium's Runequest was D&D's #1 competitor until ICE'S Middle Earth Roleplaying in the late 80's. There were other's like T&T's Rhalph and Bob Liddel's World(Dimensions & Doors) that aren't as widely known, even now. And, of course, your local gonzo homebrew!
'I do also think the self-identified OSR is pretty strongly wedded to dungeons and the crawling thereof.':
There are certain people who are Dungeon-centric: Tentpole of a campaign, and all that, for certain.(And that doesn't preclude creativity in world-building, ime. In many cases, a world builds out from there. It did for mine, for example!)
But... There are various OSR settings being worked on piecemeal out there: DnDWPS's Vornheim, Geoffrey McKinney's Carcosa, Timeshadow's Urutsk, Huge Ruined Pile's off-again on again, Thool, Grognardia's Dwimmermount, Jeff's current game of the year(right new Caves of Myrddin), Planet Algol's Metal Earth, etc... No Box Sets or Campaign books yet, but there's a lot of info on the blogs and a few will be publishing their stuff. Not all of this is dungeon crawling.(There *is* plenty of that, if that's what someone wants!) And there are more in the works!
I'm looking forward to developments, myself. An OSR equivalent of Talislanta, Jorune, Tékumel, or even a Demiplane of Dread, as it were. It's still kinda early on in the OSR, so currents of inspiration are starting to form into branching rivers of diverging creativity. It's a good time for fans, imo.
As to New 'Old School' Sci-Fi:
Star Wars D6 is still being actively played, has enough campaign material for a lifetime, and hasn't been actively maligned by detractors, so that's probably why there's been no overt revival. You never know though. On Basicroleplaying.net, some seem to be converting it to that system, and things might come out of that.
Have you checked out the excellent Stars Without Number? It's an OSR space opera with a customizeable, but familiar setting. I'm not a big sci-fi aficionado, so I don't really keep up, but this one caught my eye. And as I recall, Goblinoid Games is going to support a new version of Starships & Spacemen. Oh, and Timemaster, too.
Post 2:
DeleteAs for Superheroes:
There's never been a huge demand for superhero RPGs, so there's less of a folowing, therefore little chance of a revival.(Isn't Mutants & Masterminds and Hero pretty much all that there's left, other than the perennial Villains & Vigilantes?) The Marvel Superheroes RPG is legally available for free, along with all its adventures, though.(And DC Superheroes Yahoo Games Group is still very active, so there's fan support for it.) fora And, of course, there's the FASERIP(Marvel Superheroes) clone: 4C. And The 4 Colors RPG. But there seems little interest there, AFAIK.
Fantasy is still the 800lb gorilla in both 'New' and 'Old' School, unfortunately. At least as I far as I can tell.
'And I apologize if I insulted things that you feel strongly about.':
No problem. No offense taken. I was just wondering if you were taking a shot at Gygax and Old School play style, or simply being flippant, that's all. My replies were simply meant to decry the notion that the OSR is monolithic.(Though I can see how an occasional visitor to certain blogs could get that idea: there is almost total consensus on certain issues: namely the complexity, utility, and purpose of varied rules sets, and to a lesser degree, the primacy of Fantasy. There's more wiggle room on the flavor, though, thankfully. Not everyone is a Dungeon Delver, for example. :-))
I wasn't trying to be combative(or to defend the reputation of that which needs no defending); I was trying to point out some OSR content you might've missed, as you identified as an 'outsider', and you didn't seem entirely familiar with the extended OSR blogosphere.
Thanx for your response.
Anyone who namedrops FASERIP is okay in my book. Pleased to meetcha.
DeleteThe RPG Corner: bringing folks together since 2008.
Delete(And thanks to everyone for all the stimulating discussion and the kind words about the blog!)
@Uncle Matt:
DeleteLikewise! The more the merrier, really. Anyone who's all for more and varied campaign settings is all right by me. (That's my AD&D Second Edition speaking!) :-)
@sirlarkins:
Thanx!
Just wanted to plug my own setting, Shatterworld.
Deletehttp://shatterworldrpg.blogspot.com/
Unrelated pic, meet desktop background.
ReplyDeleteJen R.
Maybe Gary Gygax wasn't that comfortable with well-realized characters adventuring outside dungeons
ReplyDeleteI think EGG's later AD&D writing & his work on Lejendary belie that assertion.
I think many campaigns have recapitulated Gary's Journey, and the OSR is doing so as well.
Don't rush it.
~V~
Who did that picture? I want to buy everything they ever painted.
ReplyDeleteA reverse image search points to an artist named Omar Ryann. You're right; one of each, please.
DeleteWow. I want an RPG based on his work and I want it now.
Delete