Back in the day we were all "old-school" by default. In the early 1980s AD&D was new, a new way to play a game, a new way to socialize, a new way to solve problems. Back then everything was created from scratch, sure we had modules and supplements and Dragon Magazine, but the tropes and mainstays of the genre had yet to be defined. The formulaic solutions to well defined problems were still being invented; every foetid stink from the mouldering dungeon was a breath of fresh air in creative terms.
You can see the effect most easily in CRPGs and especially in the terminology used in MMORPGs to discuss tactics. Of course CRPGs have always been less nuanced than paper & pencil games, but even through the end of the 1990s there was a sense of possibility, of emergent behavior through combination of play styles. A great example is UserUnfriendly's Cheese Guide for Baldur's Gate 2. This guide is no mere list of exploits, it explores unintended effects and creative solutions to tough situations. Another example is NetHack, which has more surprises and inventive interaction than many table top campaigns I played in my youth.
With the rise of more tactical fantasy games and the limited communication available to MMO players, games like EQ and WoW created a short-hand for the techniques they use to win battles. This method of thinking has come back to RPGs through reverse osmosis. Since people who play CRPGs (MMO or not) are often the same ones who now play the paper & pencil games a general feel and mindset has settled on game rule sets and on gamers themselves. Of course 4E and the proliferation of feats and perks is an example, players want fun things for their characters to do. An easy way for the games to provide this is through explicit rules. "Hey my character has Expert 2-Weapon Fighting so I get a bonus of ..."
It isn't only the vast number of special attacks, class builds, and unique equipment that have changed the games. The very nature of thinking about playing has changed too. Of course everyone in the 1980s knew the fighter had to stand in front and protect the party, but the thinking was rudimentary. Now we have, "pulling aggro", "damage soaking", "DPS builds," and many other very precise methods for efficiently defeating enemies and players expect these to be equally valid in any rules-based RPG, computer or otherwise.
Can I unknow these concepts? Is there a way to be a naive, and less constrained player? Does moving away from the current highly defined rules sets mean moving back to an earlier era? Some games defy the trend without "retro" solutions, and provide other models to combat and character. Diceless systems like Amber take an entirely different approach and have rules-based, but non-randomized conflict. Another example I would recommend is In A Wicked Age which is even further into the story-telling end of the continuum. However, I'm not really familiar with the paradigm of diceless games and while I like the ideas behind it, it seems to take a special kind of RPG gamer.
What does all this have to do with the Old School Revival? I recently decided to take the plunge and get into the retro-clone world and I bought the Swords & Wizardry Complete Handbook (cheap on PDF). I wanted something that I could pick up and play, that was easy to explain, and left a lot of room for variety. So part of it is my comfort zone as a DM, but I also think that the minimal structure will allow me to present a more creative campaign and give my players a better experience. There's an interesting article by Tavis that discusses some of these issues. I originally assumed I'd be playing Labyrinth Lord, as that was closest to my experience, but something funny happeded. I was drawn to the simpler system of S&W and the creative juices began to flow. I'll be blogging about my campaign ideas and house rules here so stay tuned.
Next up, Balancing Classes in Swords & Wizardry...
No comments:
Post a Comment