Well, to directly answer the first question... no, probably not... but this leads directly to the second and more difficult question. What really is "Old School" role-playing? Is it just nostalgia? Is it a certain gaming aesthetic? Can a role-playing game have an aesthetic? Is it descending armor classes and large to-hit tables, or perhaps the dreaded "THACO"? How can I know when a game is "Old School"? I seem to know it when I see it. Can this be defined?
Many have taken a shot defining the term and the movement behind it. Matt Finch (who is partly responsible for this madness- and we love him for it) has offered some interesting thoughts. His "Old School Primer" offers some helpful phrases such as, "Ruling, not Rules" and "Player Skill, not Character Abilities". These two on-target phrases certainly do contrast modern RPG with their older brothers. They also, I think, hint at a deeper meaning.
My own yearnings for "Old School" are rooted in my experiences with 3rd Edition and then 5th Edition. Missing 2nd edition, my original reaction to 3rd edition was overwhelmingly positive. As a player, 3rd Edition game me everything I possibly imagined. Multiple skills, special feats at each level, and a unlimited capability of class customization seemed the ultimate development of an RPG. The standardization of systems and die rolls along with the stating of monsters much like player characters seemed to make the Referee's duty much easier and more logical. The "rule of cool" was strong. Things seemed great...except they weren't. The game was really complicated. It was much more complicated than the game we played in the 70s. It was simply difficult to play.
This seemed at first to be at odds with all the "improvements". The players got what they craved with endless options for min-maxing for the power gamers, endless skills and customization for the role-player, endless tactics and strategies for the wargamer. The Referee had a logical and well defined system where most every situation could be handled, every situation adjudicated, every combat or magic idea modeled. I won't say I didn't enjoy playing it, because many times I did. After each session however, I was exhausted, and not in a good way. I realized I had more fun plotting the cool powers and tactics my character could use as defined by the rules than actually playing the game (and using those powers and tactics). Running the game as a Referee was even worse.
In some ways I felt the same way after playing (or running) 3rd edition as I did after playing Advanced Squad Leader or WRG 7th Edition Ancients. Both these games had been seen as advancements and improvements over their predecessors. Certainly, playing the original Squad Leader was complicated and adding in the supplements was a mess. The same could be said with WRG 6th Edition Ancients though amendments rather than supplements were the difficult part. In both cases however the "fixes" and improvements didn't really make the game easier or more enjoyable. With ASL, the very weight of integrating all the supplements even in a standardized form made the game unwieldy. With WRG 7th, the abstraction and math involved in the "simplification" rendered the game a tedious bookkeeping experience. Now let me be fair. I have played a fair amount of ASL and WRG 7th. I enjoyed the experience... but was usually left with a sizeable headache afterward.
The advent of 5th Edition was heralded as the fix for the situation. The simplification and continued standardization of the rules along with a asymmetric (and simpler) treatment of monsters were supposed to solve the problems. It kind of did... sort of... maybe. What I found in running 5th Edition is that the game was more simple both from a player's point of view and ref's. That is, until you reached about 7th level. At this point the game began to become unwieldy and headache inducing. It bogged down.
So, what is "Old School"? What does the above have to do anything? Well, I think the Old School Renaissance does have a lot to do with nostalgia. This however is based on a real changes in modern role-playing games. Our games have become so complicated and filled with so much detail that they have become less fun to play. This is the deeper meaning behind Matt Finch's thinking. We certainly should have "Rulings, not Rules". This is because the immense body of rules and detail have lead us to focus on "Rules, not Story". A nice phrase to join with Matt's might be "Story, not Rules". This is difficult to obtain with the weight of the rules given to us both as players and as referees.
So, I think the main trend defining Old School Renaissance is a trend back to simplicity. Certainly, there needs to be a balance. The very nature of gamers demands some level of complexity to entertain our intellect. Modern RPGs however are out of balance. Returning to and older simpler aesthetic is needed. This allows us to focus on the story that we are jointly creating, not on the rules.
Come to think of it... Ascending armor classes are much simpler than to-hit tables or THACO". I have changed my mind. Ascending armor classes ARE "Old School"!
Comments