Sorry for the radio silence, folks. I’ve been writing up stuff, to be sure, but nothing complete, let alone ready for posting. Maybe once a week is too much to ask for long posts, or maybe I’m just lazy; I dunno.
 |
| "Get to work on paying my mortgage!" (Joke's on him! I don't even get paid for this! Wait...what?!) |
Still, I want to take some time to talk about how I feel about this whole Old School thing. Some recent events, such as the semi-retirement of Venger Satanis from his tiddy-tacular (I’m coining that term, Mr. Satanis) brand of publishing, as well as some chatter about the so-called BrOSR with fundamentalist ideas about Old School gaming, got me thinking about the subject overall. It’s time I added my two cents.
Yeah, I know. Opinions are like pink stars, and I’m about to drop trou and show you the one between the moons over my hammies.
 |
| That's nobody's bag. |
Got your eye-bleach ready? Ok!
I consider this blog firmly on the Old Shcool Renaissance (OSR) sphere, but that means different things to different people. So what does it mean to me? To get to the gooey, pink innards of the matter, I think I need to first define what the “old school” part means, and then what “renaissance/revival/revolution/whatever” part is.
Old School is Your School
There’s a difficult thing I think we should come to terms with about what people tend to consider “old school” – it comes with a heaping dose of subjectivity based on age. What becomes old school to someone may have a lot to do with their experiences as a child to young adult, up until about the age of 25, if my pop psychology knowledge is correct.
 |
| Professor Murder Hobo, a semi-professional fact-checker, and overall Renaissance Man, says it is. And yes, we’re already at the point where I’m reusing Mr. Hobos. |
Simply put, what you liked back in your younger years, give or take, tends to be old school to you. Everything after that isn’t, and then you yell at the kids to get off your lawn. This is why a Boomer might believe music didn’t get any better after Zeppelin, a Gen-X grog may feel D&D didn’t get better after Advanced, and a Millennial might consider 3rd Edition (or Pathfinder…oh boy...) to be the Old Testament. One day very soon, there will even be 5th Edition “grognards.”
Old School is Classical
“Sh*t, Weregrog, you basically just described nostalgia. Old School is not just about nostalgia!” You might say, and I agree with you. Enter the idea of the classic. The American Heritage Dictionary defines classic as: 1. Belonging to the highest rank or class, 2. Serving as the established model or standard, or 3. Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
So to be a classic then, a creative work should be high-quality (in terms of artistry, construction, and/or craftsmanship,) serve as the standard by which similar works are judged, and/or endure the test of time. I think at least two out of three serves as a good measure for what is a classic.
I might catch flak for this, but I don’t think B2 The Keep on the Borderlands (KotB) is that great of an introductory module for D&D (B1 has my vote.) The thing isn’t really a dungeon in the Original Edition sense, but a number of monster lairs on the borderlands (natch) near a stronghold, which is typically Expert-level fare. I think that is why the module can be such a brutal meat-grinder. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy KotB for what it is, and can appreciate the old school toughness of it, but I wonder how many people’s experiences with it may have turned them off completely from D&D.
One thing is undeniable about KoTB, though: the module is a classic! It still serves as a model for a starting D&D campaign (home base/local area/adventure location,) and it is enjoyed by many people, about 45 years and several editions later. Even by people who were either too young for it, or didn’t exist at all! I hear they’re updating it for the 2024 edition starter set.
I also think derivative works can earn the title of classic, provided they tap into that same magic that inspired the original(s.) What is D&D without Gygax's Appendix N, or Arneson's Hammer horror films? To use other media, for example, Star Wars' The Mandalorian could become a classic, whereas The Acolyte most likely will not. Culture Wars aside, the former carefully and deliberately taps into the same inspirations that made the original Star Wars a classic, whereas the latter (perhaps also deliberately) does not. You don’t typically go to McDonald’s for veggie burgers, no matter how good for you and/or the environment they may, or may not be; just sayin’.
 |
| Shots fired...PEW, PEW |
TL/DR: When it comes to roleplaying games (RPGs,) Old School to me means classic (or even cult classic,) peppered with a dash of personal nostalgia.
Renaissance, Revival, or Revolution? Why not all of them?!
So now that we understand what the “OS” in OSR is, let’s talk a little about the “R”rrr. I'll save you the pirate pic, but I'm allowed to make dad puns at my age.
Although, “Renaissance” is the most commonly-used term in “OSR” I’d like to also define the other ones in my personal order of importance.
The Revival
 |
| "RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE" |
Let’s start with “Revival,” because I think it’s what got this movement off the ground over ten years or so ago. To “revive” something, it has to be dead, or “mostly-dead,” right? But what does that mean for an RPG?
Out of print is an easy one. If it’s no longer for sale, it’s no longer in the consumer conscience. Therefore, it’s dead (at least commercially.) Then there are games that have newer editions or revisions, some which are different enough to be different games. D&D, of course, is the prime example here. If a game is no longer sold, and most people don’t play it, it’s dead; doesn’t matter whether it’s “mostly” or “all".
Enter the Revival (or raise dead, if you will.) I guess that would be an increase in people playing and talking about a dead game. The best example here is Basic/Expert (B/X) D&D. While this is likely the most popular old school system on the OSR space, as opposed to AD&D, many a grog will tell you that they dropped Basic D&D as soon as they adopted AD&D, or at least mashed the two together. Few wanted to be Basic b*ches when they could play the Advanced game.
Therefore, you could say B/X was revived from its otherwise mostly-dead status.
But the OSR is about more than reviving dead games, I think. It’s also about reviving dead ways of playing and structuring RPG campaigns. One of the better examples I can think of here is the Wilderness adventure, hexcrawl, or “sandbox.” This was pretty much a dead play structure by the time I started playing (A)D&D in the 90s.
Yes, there was the idea of wilderness travel, but it was just to get from point A to point B in an adventure; part of an adventure, but not the adventure itself. Many (but not all) maps in the AD&D 2nd Edition supplements did not have hexagons, and those that did were largely vestigial (even though there were rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide.) Most DM’s I knew, myself included, hand-waved wilderness travel, or reduced it to a couple of set-piece or random encounters to add interest to an otherwise "boring" part of the adventure.
Of course, the dungeon as a play structure was revived as well. I’ve already discussed how what passes for dungeons in modern D&D tend to be small adventure locations (i.e. lairs,) and not “megadungeons.” The megadungeon was simply THE dungeon in the earliest D&D campaigns.
In addition to these, Original play structures, a certain culture about how we play RPGs has been revived. By the time I started playing D&D, the “in” thing, considered to be better than an expansive dungeon or wilderness map was (and I think still is) a RPG adventures with a narrative structure. After reading the Elusive Shift, I realize this exalting of the “RP” part of “RPG” over the “G” happened pretty early on; roughly when D&D crossed over from wargaming circles to sci-fi/fantasy fan circles. I think that the game wasn’t all that well explained in the Original rulebooks went a long way towards this.
I’m going to go out on a dangerous, cracked, and dangling limb here, and say that I’ve come to believe a plotted, or narrative style structure for RPG adventures is a living-dead creature that has eaten up the gaming space, and continues to do so. It grew out of, and continues to feed on, a basic misconception about RPGs: that the GM and players are creating a story together. The problem is that this statement is technically correct.
When a play session is complete, there is certainly a story to tell, but it is one that has emerged from the combination of the GM's prep and gameplay itself. This is the key difference. What trips up novice GMs, and has been legitimized by adventure modules and rulebook advice going back decades, is that the GM is like a kind of writer or director that has to carefully guide the players through their adventures, often with the illusion of choice to get them "back on track."
All one has to do is spend some time in online discussion forums and the like to see the frustration this causes. From things like “players won’t follow my carefully-orchestrated plot ,” to “I can’t get this campaign off the ground because I can’t come up with a good story. ” My brothers and sisters in dice! Verily I say unto thee that I too, have known them feels, but it doesn't have to be that way!
I think this is where the business of pre-written adventures and adventure paths makes their money; the idea that you too can have an epic campaign, like your favorite book, TV, or movie series if you simply buy their product. The same way booze commercials try to lead you to believe that if you drink, it’ll be a party 24-7, and people will love you.
 |
| Your mileage may vary. |
Why this rant? Didn’t I say there was no wrong way to play D&D? I still stand by that statement. The thing is (and this is the hill I will die on,) that playing D&D, and by extension, RPGs in what is the “new school” way has been a less satisfying experience overall for me as opposed to the “old school” way. I guess I’m still a little sore about it. It’s not that I/we didn’t have fun back then (the ultimate barometer and argument-killer,) but I could have been having MORE fun with LESS frustration as both a GM and a player.
Because of this change of heart, I now look at all RPGs in a different manner, not just D&D. I don’t think the Old School “Revival” applies to just D&D. It’s 80% of it only because the game is 80% of the industry. These days, I ask myself: “how would I structure an this post-apocalyptic/horror/space opera/cyberpunk/kitchen-sink campaign in an old school manner?" I'm certainly not the first to think this way.
And this is why you’ll see me write up something like a Fallout campaign based on the Open D6 system, or stuff for some other game system that is not strictly D&D, let alone from 1974-1981, and still have the temerity to call this an Old School blog. Fight me!
So in this way, Old School Revival is a play ethos. If I were to encapsulate the Old School play style, it would include (but not necessarily be limited to) the following:
- The GM is both maker and final arbiter of the game, the world, and the rules; with, or without rulebooks. This may seem restrictive, but if done well, it keeps the game structured and frees the players to think outside their character sheet.
- Adventures tend to be location-based, or at the very least, open-ended situations. Event flowcharts are ok, but only as a rough guide. The GM must be able to improvise when players want to paint outside the lines.
- Player character failure, consequences for actions, and even ignominious death, is always a possibility. NPCs don’t have plot protection, either; “kill your darlings!” (Or be ready to.)
- The campaign world or setting exists primarily for the players to play in (or trash.) It doesn't have to be all built in a day, just a step or two beyond what the players experience.
- The campaign's “story” emerges during, and after actual gameplay; not before.
Now, I know there is an element of revisionist history in the OSR. Look, many people who picked up D&D or other RPGs either learned how to play by themselves or learned from someone else. Everyone figured things out in their own way and in their own bubbles. We didn’t have the internet to communicate about this stuff back then.
And of course, a danger for every movement that looks to the past is idealized fundamentalism, which I guess is personified by BrOSR types haranguing about strict time records and Braunsteins. But I think even the BrOSR has their good points; unfortunately lost in dogma.
So what is the counter to this? What keeps the Old School “Revival” from calcifying? Enter the Renaissance.
The Renaissance
 |
| "Gandolfo the Polymath casts Corpernicus' Heliocentric Hailstorm for XVI damage." |
The OSR isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about doing the same old thing just because. It’s also about “what ifs” and “how could I do this old school thing differently, or even improve on it?” Going back to the sandbox example, people have taken the default Wilderness play structure from Original D&D (which can be a little dry,) and run with it creatively; enriching it with their own ideas, or getting inspiration from other kinds of games (even *gasp* video games.) This is what the co-creators of the Original game did, so you can’t say it ain’t Old School to steal ideas from other types of games.
Some folks are so good at this, that they can command cash money doing it. That’s where the commercial side of the OSR comes in. At first, it was about cloning favorite, out-of-print systems, creating material to support them, and/or making products with that nostalgic feel (right down to the trade dress,) but it's become about so much more. There are metric tons of OSR stuff out there, and no one can keep track of it all. That’s good thing (Sturgeon’s Law notwithstanding!) We don’t have just one kind of “D&D,” we have many, and there’s one out there that’s right for you. It might even be the one you make up yourself!
I mentioned Sine Nomine earlier, and I think that this cat (Kevin Crawford) really gets the Old School “Renaissance” thing. He applies the sandbox play structures to more genres than just D&D-style gaming, even using the same kind of rules (B/X-ish.) Many of his games have guidelines and tools for this kind of play that are really system-agnostic, so if you haven’t checked out his works (many of which are available in free, no-frills versions,) you definitely should. In case I didn’t make myself clear.
 |
"I celebrate the man's entire catalog!" |
Even things like Shadowdark (which Mr. Satanis complained about as an example of the OSR's commercialization) are a feature, rather than a bug of the OSR. It means people are thinking about and enjoying Old School ways and ideas, applying them to their creative endeavors. Commercial success is just the indicator that there is a receptive audience for this stuff. It means Old School is here to stay. Old School is classic.
The Revolution
 |
| Against all odds, the Continental Alliance pushed back the bestial armies of the Brittonian Clonomancers at the Valley of the Forges. Thus, a new, free nation was birthed from blood and dragonfire. |
It’s all part of the natural cycle: someone has a good idea, people like it and throw money at it; they become big, but stodgy and less innovative over time. Then, new folks come up with better ideas to gobble up that money, becoming big themselves. Rinse and repeat.
I do feel that we live in a golden age for independent, creative works. If you’re really good at what you do (and a little good at marketing yourself,) you can go your own way via crowdfunding, bypassing, and even doing better than, the so-called gatekeepers. Will you get rich doing it? Probably not, but it’s not about the money now, is it?
Closing Thoughts
Well, I wasn't planning on a manifesto, but there it is! The OSR can encompass a lot, but ultimately, I feel it’s about finding new, "old" ways of playing and creating for favorite RPGs. This could mean newer RPGs for younger people, but played in a manner that would be recognizable to Arneson, Gygax, and folks from the early RPG era. Old School is an ethos: creating worlds, settings, situations, etc., and letting players go at it (with whatever good or bad consequences that entails,) rather than having, or worse, enforcing, pre-conceived notions about how the game’s “story” should go. It is about learning how the old school grogs did this, and then putting your own spin on it.
The OSR doesn't just have one dimension. For some, it's purely about the gaming, or even one, particular game: usually their favorite version of D&D. For others, it's about sharing, or publishing their ideas, and creative vision for others to enjoy, or something in between. So, if Mr. Satanis needs to min/max his OSR experience by favoring actual gaming over publishing, that is A-OK (though he really shouldn’t stop creating stuff and sharing it with the world on slimy tentacles.)
