Some thoughts on the old-school

A number of people I know are part of the old-school gaming movement, including the publisher of Fight On!.

While I'm only just learning what this idea is all about, I've been tipped off to a number of good resources, including Matthew Finch's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming which I just finished reading last week.  It's short.  And free.  Go read it.

While I'd love to claim some old-school cred myself, I can't really.  While I was gaming in that period of time, what "old-school" means is really not "playing things like we did back then" but rather taking a new look at old rules, and developing a way of play that may be old, or may be new, but is mostly defined in contrast to "the way things are now", which really means more modern rule systems and styles of play, like AD&D 4th Edition.

So, what are the hallmarks of old-school gaming?  Briefly, according to Matthew (he calls them Zen Moments)

Rulings. not rules
Player Skill, not Character Abilities
Heroic, not Superhero
Forget "Game Balance"

There are a large number of things that I find fascinating about this approach, and since I have been sitting firmly in the system-light, dice free space for quite a while, there are some natural parallels between the two styles.  On the other hand, there are some things that I find problematic.  Not that it won't work, just that I'm concerned with the implications.

Rulings, not Rules - On the one hand, I'm completely down with this.  Having a relatively simple way to determine success and failure that emphasizes in-game action or setting, rather than having a rule for everything, makes a great deal of sense to me.  In many ways, if you put aside the dice-rolling, this is basically how most diceless games work.  The issue of randomness is a big one.  Suffice it to say that the old-school likes it, it seems like, and diceless games don't need it (and if you don't like that, I would avoid diceless games).

Now, this implies a strong GM.  More and more, I'm wondering about the role of a GM in a game, but that's probably another post.

Player Skill, not Character Abilities - This one is a bit problematic for me.  On the one hand, I understand that the point of this is to have fun by trying to figure out puzzles or take novel approaches to problems, rather than checking your character sheet and seeing if you have the "amazing combat maneuver" feat.  It's meant to emphasize role-playing, but it's a different sort of role-playing than what I mean when I say that.  I mean "inhabiting a character" which includes, for example, not doing the obviously right thing to do in a situation because the character has a mental block on it.  Old-school thought seems to imply less inhabitation of the character in that sense...it's assumed the player brings all their faculties to bear on the issue at hand, not just those that would be available to the character.

If powergamers treat their characters as game pieces, old-school gamers seem to treat characters as a costume to don.  Players like me think of characters as "fictional inhabitations".  There is a big difference here.

Heroic, not Superhero - This one is interesting.  As I noted in a previous post on powergaming, many diceless games presume that your character is pretty darn powerful right off the bat, because it in some ways makes resolving conflict easier, in terms of game dynamics.  The assumption is that no one wants to inhabit a character if that character is a schlub.
Old-school gaming takes the approach that the point is to start off as a normal person, perhaps slightly better than most, and then slowly progress, via story and action, to becoming something much more heroic and powerful.  There's an assumption that this will be a central "story" in the game.  While I understand that this is a check on the sort of "epic" powers that are more common in more recent games, and does provide an engaging story, it's not enough for me, personally.  I don't particularly find it attractive, as a story.  I prefer stories that engage me emotionally. So in some ways, I'm happy playing a schlub, as long as the schlub has an interesting interior life.

Forget "game balance" - as used by the old-school, this seems to mean "you won't always encounter problems that are perfectly matched for your power level, nor will your characters always be at the same level of power."  There are so many assumptions about what role-playing games are about here that it's hard to disentangle.  Again, this seems to be a check on the concept that some gamers have that the contest has to be "fair", that the PCs will always win, and that the level of power in the game will be controlled to protect their characters from running into stuff they can't handle, yet.

Now, generally speaking, I agree with the old-school on this.  I'd much rather have a setting that allows me to make huge mistakes, and possibly get myself killed, or badly messed up.  In this sense, I don't care about game balance.  All the better in fact if it generates good stories.  But again, there's a presumption about what role-playing is - old-school games talk about a slow rise from normal to heroic, with a lot of risk.  New RPG games can sometimes be merely a series of not very challenging challenges that allow you to be a badass.  The sort of games I like tell different stories, perhaps like "you're a normal person who is in a f-ed up situation, and will likely end up badly damaged, or perhaps triumphant, but at great personal cost."

To put it bluntly, I can imaging enjoying a game that's all about how you deal with the fact that your girlfriend has just turned into a vampire.  You love her, she loves you, but she wants to eat you.  You're dramatically outclassed, and it's all about convincing her not to eat you, while struggling with the fact that she's not human anymore, and trying to pick up the pieces of your relationship.  I can imagine having great RP sessions where all you do is talk about how you thought that you were going to have kids together, but now that everything has changed, you're not sure how you feel about it.

All told, old-school gaming is a pretty cool idea.  It's got a lot of presumptions though.  Like the fact that you'll be playing something heroic.  That the characters are going to grow in power.  That there's a strong GM.  That you will be bringing your own problem solving abilities to bear.  Often, it seems to imply particular settings - fantasy, SF, and other common tropes where the heroic story can be told.

I'm really curious if I've at all got it right, so old-school friends, please chime in here.