25 September 2017

Campaign Mood - Adventure Design Philosophy, Old School vs New

It occurred to me tonight, while going over some old Judges Guild stuff (Druids of Doom in particular caused the muse to get her act together and turn a vague idea into something concrete) that I have seen the biggest difference in design approach between Old School and New School/Modern adventure design for RPGs, D&D to be specific. TSR modules had some of the same qualities, but the stuff by 3rd parties like Judges Guild, Mayfair Games and the non-TSR magazines and fanzines really showcase it. 


There's two aspects to the difference:

1. The adventure module works with the game's rules, but is not a slave to them. Old school adventures constantly introduced new, wacky and unique monsters, traps, treasures and encounter ideas in general that had not been done before and really had no precedent in the rules. Sometimes the writer explained how to adjudicate the situation, other times the DM was left to figure out a resolution on her own, but either way, the writer was not afraid to test the limits of the rules, and go beyond them when it made for a fun adventure.

2. The old school adventure writers expected you, the DM, to change their adventure! Many of the scenarios were location based, or "sand box" style, with a bare bones assumed plot or theme to get the party started and keep them moving in the right direction. A few of the published adventures even came 'un-stocked', ostensibly to teach the fledgling DM how to create and run an adventure, but also allowing the experienced DM to make the scenario her own, tailored to the campaign and party. Many of the adventure booklets, especially the ones by Judges Guild, even have copious space throughout them that is set aside for the DM's notes! No current modern adventure product I know of, except maybe some of the OSR retroclone support products, dare do this.

So, while it doesn't answer the whole question, I now have an answer when people ask me what I consider Old School gaming to be.

Gary and Dave, and the early industry they created, were more than welcoming of house rules, variants and "DM fiat", outside of tournament play, which is one of the primary reasons we got D&D and AD&D. AD&D was the fleshed out, official tournament version, D&D was the barebones 'tweak it to your heart's content' version.

Modern designers, whether of rules or adventures, feel the need to account for every possibility and railroad play into a defined set of rules that can handle anything. A recent rant I commented on lamented the "breaking" of a game by house ruling it, or pushing it to the limits of min/max powergaming.

To an old school player, that is not a problem at all, but rather it's half the fun!

8 comments:

  1. I agree. And reviewers of my titles are constantly falling over the "unformed" or primordial quality of my old school scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's very few reviewers that I think really "get" old school style gaming, I don't usually rely on reviews all that much unless they're from a handful of folks I trust.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In doing both 5e and AD&D, I find that's not the case - at least for my table. I'm pretty clear that I run rules-light, I set the expectations of "rulings" up front and I'm fair to the players. So far, so good. I think it comes down to style of DM and how they run what they brung.

      Delete
    2. I know WotC pretends otherwise, and a lot of people like to say it, but 5e is NOT old school and the published adventures for it absolutely follow the model I was describing.

      This blog is about actual old school D&D, as it was published and played 30 to 40 years ago. I am happy to see some people using games like 5e with a lot of the bloat removed to emulate the old school, but despite all the lies and propaganda during playtests and publicity stunts at the so called "OSR"cons, those games, as written and intended, are not old school at all.

      Delete
    3. Darva, absolutely it is not 1e, and even running the Basic/stripped version of 5e, I have to work to play the kind of game I want. My preference is 1st edition, I've had a Hyborea-esque campaign going for almost a decade.

      I do believe that it comes down to the DM as to how the game feels for the players, in response to MS's assertion that "Today? The DM is just the guy that rolls the dice for the opposing side." Especially to this group of rollicking 7 to 16 year olds at the library who are having a ton of fun in B2.

      Delete
    4. I don't begrudge anyone who plays 5e, or PF or whatever. If someone is using 5e though to truly strip it all the way back to be a true 'clone' of basic D&D or 1e, I just don't see justifying WotC's high prices. OSRIC, BFRPG and other actual clones seem more appropriate, and are much more affordable.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for your comments!