Old School Gaming ?

[Hama]

Bluenose wrote:

Drejk wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

Drejk wrote:

Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

I agree that there is a bigger crowd of those folks visible these days that in the past, partly thanks to the hypercodification introduced by some systems (d20 being only one of them) but partly due to increased communication between gamers and greater visibility of different individual approaches in the age of internet.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. This hypercodification is primarily an aspect of 3/X gaming. 3/X games are not open to interpretation systems - they are finely detailed, with a rule/feat for everything. If one doesn't exist, it soon will. Even 5e has backed off of this approach as part of its design consideration so I don't soley attribute this to the increased communication gamers have now vs the 70's - 90's or modern game design. This is an aspect tied mostly to the 3/X ruleset.

To name a few: Rolemaster. GURPS. Polish system Kryształy Czasu ("Crystals Of Time"). Mythic Journeys from what I browsed seemed to be very strongly codified too. All of those had their peak in nineties.

Hypercodification is part of D&D 3rd edition, that's true, but a) there were other hypercodified rulesets in the past, and b) there were always people insisting on playing "by the book" and rejecting tweaking, changes, or improvisation.

You could add Chivalry and Sorcery, and that was around before the whole of AD&D 1e was published. That era was full of games trying to do "D&D but more Realistic!", which mostly meant adding more rules to cover things that weren't in the D&D rules. And of course E Gary Gygax expressed an opinion on modifying the AD&D rules a time or two.

Lands of Lore was ahead of it's time though.

[Drejk]

ShinHakkaider wrote:

knightnday wrote:

Drejk wrote:

Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

Do not play with those people. Treat them like you would any other group of people screaming at you about things they don't like that you've changed in your game, your life, your clothing or anything else.

Unless you are forced to GM PFS at gun point, there is no reason to stand for someone screaming at you about rules, and even then I'd be hard pressed to put up with that sort of nonsense. Tell people at the beginning of your house rules and that you might *gasp* be creative ith creatures that don't exist in their books or that you might make a ruling that doesn't always line up with the exact words in the book.

If they freak out about that, find more people to play with. Life is too short.

I'm in absolute agreement here. And was going to pretty much say the same thing except less elegantly. I used to have a lot of tolerance for my fellow gamer and this kind of obsessive behavior. Now I find it the opposite of fun and try to find decent PEOPLE to play with. You can pretty much teach people what they need to know about gaming but you cant teach or foster decency and / or civility in people past a certain age.

That's not a complaint. That is an argument in discussion about certain type of gamers being present prior to appearance of 3rd edition (which does indeed seemed to make them proliferate, though, maybe the same type of gamers from 80s started to procreate in meantime ;). Myself I only play with people that I know and I expect them to trust in my GMing decisions.

[knightnday]

Drejk wrote:

That's not a complaint. That is an argument in discussion about certain type of gamers being present prior to appearance of 3rd edition (which does indeed seemed to make them proliferate, though, maybe the same type of gamers from 80s started to procreate in meantime ;). Myself I only play with people that I know and I expect them to trust in my GMing decisions.

Oh yes, people like this existed forever in the game. I imagine that right after the first set of rules were laid out someone started in. My suggestion still holds: remove those people from the game and maybe, if they don't have anyone to play with for a while they'll calm down and be a little less disagreeable.

[Digitalelf]

I tend to run my games RAW, and prefer to participate in such games over those that are heavily houseruled; but then, I agreed with Gary Gygax when he often mentioned that there comes a point where if one changes or alters the game rules too much, that one is no longer playing D&D, but some alternate fantasy RPG. I realize that is not a very popular opinion to agree with/hold, but so be it...

But what I do NOT do, is "cry foul" when a DM/GM has a lot of houserules, and/or a lot of changes to the RAW; I just tend to opt not to play in that particular game.

[Sarcasm Dragon]

knightnday wrote:

Drejk wrote:

Except people screaming "that isn't in the rules" and throwing tantrums that GM dared to change monster from its exact bestiary block were around at least since nineties, and I suspect that they were here soon after the beginning... Arguing that "game" requires holding to the rules isn't all that new.

Do not play with those people.

Ah, but Auxmaulous has asserted that 'those people' encompass everyone who plays 3e and its clones. If you want to play 3e, you must play with 'those people', for so it has been proclaimed by Auxmaulous.

[DrDeth]

Digitalelf wrote:

I tend to run my games RAW, and prefer to participate in such games over those that are heavily houseruled; but then, I agreed with Gary Gygax when he often mentioned that there comes a point where if one changes or alters the game rules too much, that one is no longer playing D&D, but some alternate fantasy RPG. I realize that is not a very popular opinion to agree with/hold, but so be it...

But what I do NOT do, is "cry foul" when a DM/GM has a lot of houserules, and/or a lot of changes to the RAW; I just tend to opt not to play in that particular game.

I agree- at a certain point it's what we used to call "Vardy" (Variant D&D).

And I'll even play with a lot of houserules- if the DM and the group make it worthwhile.

[Auxmaulous]

Sarcasm Dragon wrote:

Ah, but Auxmaulous has asserted that 'those people' encompass everyone who plays 3e and its clones. If you want to play 3e, you must play with 'those people', for so it has been proclaimed by Auxmaulous.

WTF did I say that? Cite the post.

Or are you just making that inference because of being bum-hurt that 3/X is a heavily codified system and I happened to point out the obvious?

[Sarcasm Elemental]

I love it when people take us stone-cold seriously.

[FOAD Dragon]

Sarcasm Elemental wrote:

I love it when people take us stone-cold seriously.

The pain runs deep in this one.

[patriarchus]

I see two big differences between 'Old School' and the current ethos:

1) In the Old School, the creativity in the game before you sat down at the table was all in the hands of the DM. The DM had the leeway to adapt and adjust the world and everything in it while the players had to find a way to fit their PC vision into the ruleset, which was limited and fairly fixed in the types of characters that could result. The current ethos makes PC creation just as creative an enterprise as world design, to the point now where a DM has to protect his game world by restricting the options ('house ruling' being much more now about PC creation than about in-game play, at least for my table) so as to insure that the players don't break the world with their effective an nuanced character optimization. There is now so much material for PC creation and customization that playing a game RAW requires a DM with a photographic and encyclopedic knowledge of dozens of books about the PCs, in addition to the traditional massive information load on the DM for the rest of the world.

2) In the Old School, the 'balance' in the game was calibrated for the party as a whole versus the intended encounters in a gaming session. A DM was expected to put challenges in front of the party that the party could handle by letting each character shine in specific situations (some traps for the thief, something requiring magic for the magic-user, some brutes for the fighter, and no chance to rest/an undead challenge for the cleric). That led to party composition ALWAYS having at least one of the major four classes and exotic parties were those that had the sub-classes while parties that didn't hit the main tent posts were usually annihilated. (Ever try running a four fighter party through Pharoah? Count on a TPK even though the module is not especially lethal.) The current ethos calibrates balance between the various classes at every level. While in the old game a Thief 12 was less powerful than a Wizard 8 (roughly the same XP), the party as a whole was balanced against the DM's creations. In the new game, every player can expect their 5th level character to be roughly equivalent in terms of power; when that doesn't happen, the underpowered class can expect to be revised or ignored (see the creation of the Ninja class and the 'Unchained' Rogue to creep up the power curve to equal the Wizard/Cleric of the PFRPG).

These two core mechanical differences lead to changes in how time is spent in the game. In the 'Old School' world, introducing new players to a game is a snap and character creation takes less than 15 minutes. In the current ethos, introducing new players takes an orientation and character creation takes at least an hour and often takes several more hours, especially if the new PC is coming in at greater than level 1. Additionally, while playing, in an 'Old School' game, the vast majority of rules discussions relate to making up a workable rule for that situation while in the current ethos, rules discussions tend to be an exercise in researching the vast body of explicit rules.

In both cases, you have role-players and roll-players, power-gamers and story-tellers, DM tyrants and Monty Haul DMs.

At my table, I have seen the challenges of DMing change and the objections of players change too. I don't think there is a perfect system but there is a perfect style for your group of players; the goal is to find it. If using an 'Old School' label helps with that task, it is only because it helps you identify what your players are looking for in a game.

[Mace Windu, Jedi Master]

Something, something Jedi-ey

[KenderKin]

Old school gamers know what a kender is and thus know instinctively not to take anything I say seriously....and to hide their valuables....

New School gamers don't get it

[DrDeth]

patriarchus wrote:

I see two big differences between 'Old School' and the current ethos:

1) In the Old School, the creativity in the game before you sat down at the table was all in the hands of the DM. ...
2) In the Old School, the 'balance' in the game was calibrated for the party as a whole versus the intended encounters in a gaming session. A DM was expected to put challenges in front of the party that the party could handle by letting each character shine in specific situations (some traps for the thief, something requiring magic for the magic-user, some brutes for the fighter, and no chance to rest/an undead challenge for the cleric). That led to party composition ALWAYS having at least one of the major four classes and exotic parties were those that had the sub-classes while parties that didn't hit the main tent posts were usually annihilated. ...

Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.

[kyrt-ryder]

KenderKin wrote:

Old school gamers know what a kender is and thus know instinctively not to take anything I say seriously....and to hide their valuables....

New School gamers don't get it

New School gamers welcome their kender friends.

[Imbicatus]

KenderKin wrote:

Old school gamers know what a kender is and thus know instinctively not to take anything I say seriously....and to hide their valuables....

New School gamers don't get it

Old school gamers send you off with the tinker gnome and gully dwarf, and then take bets on what happens.

[thejeff]

DrDeth wrote:

patriarchus wrote:

I see two big differences between 'Old School' and the current ethos:

1) In the Old School, the creativity in the game before you sat down at the table was all in the hands of the DM. ...
2) In the Old School, the 'balance' in the game was calibrated for the party as a whole versus the intended encounters in a gaming session. A DM was expected to put challenges in front of the party that the party could handle by letting each character shine in specific situations (some traps for the thief, something requiring magic for the magic-user, some brutes for the fighter, and no chance to rest/an undead challenge for the cleric). That led to party composition ALWAYS having at least one of the major four classes and exotic parties were those that had the sub-classes while parties that didn't hit the main tent posts were usually annihilated. ...

Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.

No. They just bongoed about having to play the thief or the cleric, since somebody had to. Granted we usually had someone playing a mage/thief or fighter/thief, so they were more fun.

Clerics didn't have as many multiclass options and were stuck being healbots far too much of the time.

Might not be "class balance", but causes a lot of the same problems. But worse, since you still needed them.

[Robert Carter 58]

thejeff wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

patriarchus wrote:

I see two big differences between 'Old School' and the current ethos:

1) In the Old School, the creativity in the game before you sat down at the table was all in the hands of the DM. ...
2) In the Old School, the 'balance' in the game was calibrated for the party as a whole versus the intended encounters in a gaming session. A DM was expected to put challenges in front of the party that the party could handle by letting each character shine in specific situations (some traps for the thief, something requiring magic for the magic-user, some brutes for the fighter, and no chance to rest/an undead challenge for the cleric). That led to party composition ALWAYS having at least one of the major four classes and exotic parties were those that had the sub-classes while parties that didn't hit the main tent posts were usually annihilated. ...

Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.

No. They just bongoed about having to play the thief or the cleric, since somebody had to. Granted we usually had someone playing a mage/thief or fighter/thief, so they were more fun.

Clerics didn't have as many multiclass options and were stuck being healbots far too much of the time.

Might not be "class balance", but causes a lot of the same problems. But worse, since you still needed them.

Yes, this. Gnome Illusionist/Thieves and Elf and Half-Elf Magic-User/Thieves saw a lot of Play in AD&D. As well as Fighter/Thieves. I played all of these. I loved having thief skills, but I wanted other goodies. Most games I played in rarely got to high level (either due to character death or player attrition or whatever) so racial level limits didn't dissuade me.

[Terquem]

You know I am always reading about how so many old school games had Clerics that were relegated to being "heal bots" but this was never my experience, which I think goes to show how there are really a lot of different "old school" experiences.

My sister played a Cleric in my very first game (and when we started her character could not cast any spells at first level). Her cleric was an armored fighter, defender of the faith of the The Church at Ses Theeth, and when her character did start casting spells, rarely did she use healing spells

Other games I ran through the late seventies and earlier eighties, always had clerics in full armor, in the front lines absorbing the blows of monsters that had a hard time getting through the high AC, while the fighters ran around with lighter armor and two handed weapons dealing out the damage, - but these are just my experiences.

[Robert Carter 58]

Clerics always had some good defense spells and combat abilites in the game. I never had a player unhappy with the cleric PC, and I GMed a lot of AD&D. The cleric healed, but always contributed in a lot of other ways. I never played one in AD&D, but I usually preferred a multi-classed thief.

Edit: That's a lie, I played a cleric/ranger once...

[thejeff]

I played a dwarven warrior priest in one 2E game, but despite my intention and best efforts he kept getting pushed into the heal mode.
Sure, full armor, sure soaking some damage, but he had to reserve most of the spells for healing. As insurance, if nothing else.
No CLW wands. No spontaneous heals. No channelling.

If your clerics didn't heal or didn't use healing spells, how did you heal? GM throw you plentiful healing items?

In a couple games we wound with NPC tagalong clerics because no one was interested.

[Imbicatus]

thejeff wrote:

If your clerics didn't heal or didn't use healing spells, how did you heal? GM throw you plentiful healing items?

Lots of potions, and Keoughtum's ointment.

Although, usually I based spells by level.

First Level: all CLW.
Second Level: One Silence 15' radius, the rest Hold Person
Third Level: Dispel Magic, Continual Light
Fourth: CSW
Fifth: Flame Strike
Sixth: Blade Barrier

This way was providing some healing, but a lot more offense.

[Digitalelf]

thejeff wrote:

If your clerics didn't heal or didn't use healing spells, how did you heal? GM throw you plentiful healing items?

In the games that I run (and as you may know, I use 2nd edition AD&D), if the party's priest does not use a lot of healing spells, the party gets a lot of their healing from local temples/shrines, or if that is not a convenient option, they will wait to get healing from the cleric the following day once the cleric has slept and then prayed for a few healing spells instead of the non-healing spells he normally prays for; if he's able to receive healing spells that is.

Because, in 2nd edition, if one uses the specialty priest rules, some clerics are not given access to healing spells at all (or have VERY limited access to healing magic), depending on the nature of their chosen deity...

And if that's the case, and the party does not have access to any healing scrolls and/or potions, then the party deals with not being at full HP, and is forced to rely on natural healing, which in 2nd edition, is only 1 HP per day of rest, or 3 HP for a complete day of bed rest (which just meant doing NOTHING for an entire day).

Characters can squeeze another HP or two of "natural healing" if someone in the party (and not necessarily the cleric/priest) has the Healing proficiency, and will recover yet more HP if that same person also has the Herbalism proficiency to go along with the Healing proficiency as well.

[thejeff]

Digitalelf wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If your clerics didn't heal or didn't use healing spells, how did you heal? GM throw you plentiful healing items?

In the games that I run (and as you may know, I use 2nd edition AD&D), if the party's priest does not use a lot of healing spells, the party gets a lot of their healing from local temples/shrines, or if that is not a convenient option, they will wait to get healing from the cleric the following day once the cleric has slept and then prayed for a few healing spells instead of the non-healing spells he normally prays for; if he's able to receive healing spells that is.

Because, in 2nd edition, if one uses the specialty priest rules, some clerics are not given access to healing spells at all (or have VERY limited access to healing magic), depending on the nature of their chosen deity...

And if that's the case, and the party does not have access to any healing scrolls and/or potions, then the party deals with not being at full HP, and is forced to rely on natural healing, which in 2nd edition, is only 1 HP per day of rest, or 3 HP for a complete day of bed rest (which just meant doing NOTHING for an entire day).

Yeah, we rarely had the leisure to sit around that long. We'd have some healing potions or other items, but not enough to rely.

So, despite some priests not having access to healing spells, the ones that did were the ones that needed to be used. Because you needed a cleric to heal.

Or, as you suggest, the GM needed to supply you with healing items or convenient temples or at least time to recover after taking damage.

[Jacob Saltband]

In the games I played in, temples had a least a few scrools and potions for sell. Usually the high priest ensured these were available so he had the gold to gild his blessed golf clubs.

[DrDeth]

thejeff wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.

No. They just bongoed about having to play the thief or the cleric, since somebody had to. Granted we usually had someone playing a mage/thief or fighter/thief, so they were more fun.

Clerics didn't have as many multiclass options and were stuck being healbots far too much of the time.

Might not be "class balance", but causes a lot of the same problems. But worse, since you still needed them.

Naw- everyone wanted to play the Thief, or some variation. Cleric was pretty good at hitting things and could whup on Monsters.

[thejeff]

DrDeth wrote:

thejeff wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.

No. They just bongoed about having to play the thief or the cleric, since somebody had to. Granted we usually had someone playing a mage/thief or fighter/thief, so they were more fun.

Clerics didn't have as many multiclass options and were stuck being healbots far too much of the time.

Might not be "class balance", but causes a lot of the same problems. But worse, since you still needed them.

Naw- everyone wanted to play the Thief, or some variation. Cleric was pretty good at hitting things and could whup on Monsters.

About the only consistent thing about AD&D is that everyone's experience of it seems to have been different.

The big draw to thieves that I remember was that elves (and maybe others) weren't level limited. Made them a very attractive multiclass option if there was even a chance you'd play to fairly high levels.

[Digitalelf]

DrDeth wrote:

everyone wanted to play the Thief

Oh come on!

You're just saying that because you're more than a little biased... :-P

[GreyWolfLord]

thejeff wrote:

I played a dwarven warrior priest in one 2E game, but despite my intention and best efforts he kept getting pushed into the heal mode.

Sure, full armor, sure soaking some damage, but he had to reserve most of the spells for healing. As insurance, if nothing else.
No CLW wands. No spontaneous heals. No channelling.

If your clerics didn't heal or didn't use healing spells, how did you heal? GM throw you plentiful healing items?

In a couple games we wound with NPC tagalong clerics because no one was interested.

Well, one thing is, there aren't any healing spells at 2nd or 3rd level (and I think there aren't any at 5th level or 7th level either). So, in a way, you are forced NOT to use healing spells for most of the time.

Now, if they are constantly hit by an effect(like blindness, or level drain at higher levels, or death) you may have a lot more healing of those types of spells, but typically you don't have to have those memorized at that instant and can utilze those later.

However, The cleric is probably the second best warrior type out there after the Warriors themselves, so combined with Magic, that's a potent combination.

[GreyWolfLord]

It seems there were a lot of girls in our groups that had a huge fascination with rogues/thieves.

I myself was more of a Bard guy in 2e games...but I try to have (too much at times) a flair for the dramatic.

[Pan]

Old school: Designed around the adventure.

New School: Designed around the encounter/combat.

[kyrt-ryder]

Pan wrote:

Old school: Designed around the adventure.

Can you elaborate on this Pan [or anybody else following this thread]? I'm really curious to hear how one might consider Old School designed around the adventure in a way that differentiates it from playstyles more common among newer groups.

[Pan]

In the past XP was gained by collecting gold. Parties had the same focus storywise as they do today, but there was much less emphasis on combat and killing things. You could be just as successful bypassing a fight if possible. In fact, it was more optimal to do so. A typical adventure was more balanced between puzzles, obstacles, traps, and eventually an encounter. Each class would shine through with their own strength based on the particular challenge. PCs had to use their limited resources in a game of attrition to complete their goals successfully.

Newer design has moved XP to NPC/monsters themselves, which in a sense put a bounty on their head. Combat has always been a part of the game, but now daily and constant combats are the norm. Many classes received additional resources and powers to make up for this. Good examples are Paizo "point pools", 4E AEDU, 3.5 wands/scrolls in a can, etc. Resources have become levied towards combats and is reflected in recent designs.

One thing id like to mention is I dont see some huge dividing line. Folks played the game differently back in the day because they lacked the decades of experience and modern game design innovations we take for granted today. I do think design choices have a big influence on the outcome on playstyles. However, I have met brand new players I would describe as having old school sensibilities. I also know a few O.G.s who would say, "old school? Been there, and I am never going back!" Both styles have equal merit and are only a matter of preference to me. YMMV.

[Liz Courts]

Removed a post. Please keep it civil, thanks!

[thejeff]

Pan wrote:

In the past XP was gained by collecting gold. Parties had the same focus storywise as they do today, but there was much less emphasis on combat and killing things. You could be just as successful bypassing a fight if possible. In fact, it was more optimal to do so. A typical adventure was more balanced between puzzles, obstacles, traps, and eventually an encounter. Each class would shine through with their own strength based on the particular challenge. PCs had to use their limited resources in a game of attrition to complete their goals successfully.

Of course, the same approach can easily be taken today and often is. APs & modules often explicitly award experience for succeeding without fighting, when they don't just suggest levelling at the appropriate point in the adventure.

And while the gold == xp rule was definitely there in AD&D, I don't recall published adventures following the approach you suggest. Other than having wandering monsters you were better off avoiding. They tended to be heavily combat based, with little opportunity to avoid fights and still get the loot. And the goals that got the party sent there often required killing the baddies anyway.

Obviously, like anything back in the day, YMMV. Everyone played very differently.

[KenderKin]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

KenderKin wrote:

Old school gamers know what a kender is and thus know instinctively not to take anything I say seriously....and to hide their valuables....

New School gamers don't get it

New School gamers welcome their kender friends.

Who wouldn't?

[Krensky]

Even 3.0 talks about awarding XP for overcoming challenges and that defeating NPCs did not necessarily mean fighting and killing them.

It's commonly ignored in these discussions, but it was still there.

[Pan]

Krensky wrote:

Even 3.0 talks about awarding XP for overcoming challenges and that defeating NPCs did not necessarily mean fighting and killing them.

It's commonly ignored in these discussions, but it was still there.

Its certainly not a binary mechanic between previous editions and new. Folks in the past certainly could have combat constantly. I use PF today but GM in a very old school approach. Its really up to the individual group when it comes to playstyle. Though, with characters being powered up and character creation becoming much more complex, I think its obvious that combat has become a very central focus of modern games.

[thejeff]

Pan wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Even 3.0 talks about awarding XP for overcoming challenges and that defeating NPCs did not necessarily mean fighting and killing them.

It's commonly ignored in these discussions, but it was still there.

Its certainly not a binary mechanic between previous editions and new. Folks in the past certainly could have combat constantly. I use PF today but GM in a very old school approach. Its really up to the individual group when it comes to playstyle. Though, with characters being powered up and character creation becoming much more complex, I think its obvious that combat has become a very central focus of modern games.

OTOH, with modern games having more detailed skill, diplomacy and downtime rules, it's obvious that they're deemphasizing combat and focusing more on roleplaying and character interaction.

That's bull of course, but not much more so than arguing the other way.

As an aside, I'd assume "modern games" here means D&D 3.x/PF? Maybe including other d20 games and/or 4E? Because once you get outside of those pretty narrow limits, modern games don't really show the trend you describe. Even 5E doesn't really fit.

[Irontruth]

To me, modern game means things like Dogs in the Vineyard, anything "Powered by the Apocalypse", Fiasco or Burning Wheel.

5E definitely has modern influences, but it's roots and modus operandi is still firmly set in an older style of gaming. I'd say similar things about 3.X and 4E as well, just to different degrees.

[Krensky]

Pan wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Even 3.0 talks about awarding XP for overcoming challenges and that defeating NPCs did not necessarily mean fighting and killing them.

It's commonly ignored in these discussions, but it was still there.

Its certainly not a binary mechanic between previous editions and new. Folks in the past certainly could have combat constantly. I use PF today but GM in a very old school approach. Its really up to the individual group when it comes to playstyle. Though, with characters being powered up and character creation becoming much more complex, I think its obvious that combat has become a very central focus of modern games.

You're using 'obvious' as a shorthand for 'in my opinion' in a unironic and non-sarcastic fashion.

You should stop doing that.

[DrDeth]

Digitalelf wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

everyone wanted to play the Thief

Oh come on!

You're just saying that because you're more than a little biased... :-P

So very true.<g> Oddly, I usually played the Cleric.

[DrDeth]

KenderKin wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

KenderKin wrote:

Old school gamers know what a kender is and thus know instinctively not to take anything I say seriously....and to hide their valuables....

New School gamers don't get it

New School gamers welcome their kender friends.

Who wouldn't?

We "welcome" them into the whirling blades of death, followed by the lava pits.

;-)

[Pan]

Some poor choices of wording on my part. I meant solely D&D/PF and not other RPGs for this discussion. By modern I meant 3.x/4E. 5E is interesting because I think it does a better job of any of the recent iterations of bridging old/new school playstyles. My observations are of course mine, and not objective arguments, but generalizations. Even without being objectively correct, I think there is an interesting discussion to be had if anyone cares to engage in such without having to be right.

[Mark Hoover]

Old school = talking things out. New school = ruling things out. That's my OPINION.

Cuz that's all this is. What I find new school my daughters both find old school. On the flip what my older brother (7 years older than me, nearly 50, and played historical mini games) considers new school is... me.

Thing is, it all comes down to what you like. That's all ANY of these games come down to. Do you like old or new school; Marvel or Champions; Call of Cthulu or Fear?

Rather than try to define styles when breaking in new players or meeting new gamers I just very plainly ask: what do you like?

I ask this w/a lot of different stuff on new people, not just games. I ask if they like Marvel VS DC comics, or if they don't care for superheroes. Do they like Star TREK, or Star WARS? Did they watch Friends back in the day, or did they watch X-Files instead?

Try this question the next time you're meeting new gamers: do you prefer Moe, Larry or Curly? Moe = control, dominance. Larry = follower with an artistic soul. Curly = the clown, looking for fun only. If they answer Curly Joe or Shemp, just politely check your phone and say "I better take this..."

[TOZ]

MarkMark, you know better than to try and get people to just play the game instead of judging others.

[Jaunt]

Old school gaming, to me, is the style of gaming that exists only in the memories of people who started gaming a while ago, and that they pretend happened at that time. It is the favorite style of everybody who plays it. No two old school games are the same. Most are ridiculously different. This never stops grognards from getting together and weeping over what the millenials are doing to their favorite hobby.

[Terquem]

I started gaming a long time ago

It was like 5:45 am this morning

[Mark Hoover]

Oh backwards ZOT, how I've missed you. Let's never be apart online that long again!

Also, isn't a big part of old school judging people anyway?

[Orthos]

Terquem wrote:

I started gaming a long time ago

It was like 5:45 am this morning

Lucky, that was the time I was going to work -_-