A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming

[Cramulus]

Here's an interesting document which talks about the differences between 1970s-80s and modern RPG styles.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49286499/A-Quick-Primer-for-Old-School-Gaming

x-posted here for your convenience.....


This booklet is an introduction to "old school" gaming, designed especially for anyone
who started playing fantasy role-playing games after, say, the year 2000 – but it's also for
longer-time players who have slowly shifted over to modern styles of role-playing over
the years.

If you want to try a one-shot session of 0e using the free Swords & Wizardry rules,
just printing the rules and starting to play as you normally do will produce a completely
pathetic gaming session – you'll decide that 0e is just missing all kinds of important
rules. What makes 0e different from later games isn't the rules themselves, it's how
they're used. In fact, there's such a big difference between the 0e style of play and the
modern style of play that I've described four "Zen Moments" where a fundamental
modern gaming concept is turned completely on its head by the 0e approach. These are
areas where your most basic assumptions about gaming probably need to be reversed, if
you want to experience what real 0e playing is all about. I call them Zen Moments
because they sound completely and impossibly wrong to the modern gamer's ear, but
once you accept the mirror-image logic of this approach, it suddenly makes sense as a
system, like the reversed world of Alice-in-the-Looking-Glass.

In General: Four Zen Moments

Playing an old-style game is very different from modern games where rules cover many
specific situations. The 0e rules don't give you much specific guidance, and that's not
because they left out the answers to save space. Treat it like a game you've never seen
before, a game where the rules give guidelines and the referee interprets those guidelines.

First Zen Moment: Rulings, not Rules
Most of the time in old-style gaming, you don't use a rule; you make a ruling. It's easy
to understand that sentence, but it takes a flash of insight to really "get it." The players
can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they "can"
do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he
thinks there's some random element involved, and then the game moves on. This is why
characters have so few numbers on the character sheet, and why they have so few
specified abilities. Many of the things that are "die roll" challenges in modern gaming
(disarming a trap, for example) are handled by observation, thinking, and
experimentation in old-style games. Getting through obstacles is more "hands-on" than
you're probably used to. Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players.
Players use observation and description as their tools and resources: rules are for the
referee only.

A simple example: the pit trap. By tradition, many pit traps in 0e are treated as follows.
They can be detected easily, by probing ahead with a 10ft pole. If you step onto one,
there is a 1 in 6 chance that the pit trap will open. And that's all there is to it. By
contrast, modern games usually contain character classes with specific abilities to detect
and disarm traps. Let's take a look at how a pit trap might be handled according to the 0e
and the modern approaches.

Note: The modern-style GM in these examples is a pretty boring guy when it comes
to adding flavor into his game. This isn't done to make modern-style gaming look
bad: we assume most people reading this booklet regularly play modern-style games
and know that they aren't this boring. It's done to highlight when and how rules
are used in modern gaming, as opposed to when and how they aren't used in oldstyle
gaming. So the modern-style GM talks his way through all the rules he's
using, which isn't how a good modern-style GM usually runs his game.

The Pit Trap (Modern Style)
GM: "A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness."
John the Rogue: "I check for traps."
GM: "What's your target number for checking?"
John the Rogue: "15."
GM: Decides that the pit trap in front of the party is "standard," so all John has to do is
roll a 15 or better. "Roll a d20."
John the Rogue: "16."
GM: "Probing ahead of you, you find a thin crack in the floor – it looks like there's a pit
trap."
John the Rogue: "Can I disarm it?"
GM: "What's your target number for that?"
John the Rogue: "12. I rolled a 14."
GM: "Okay, moving carefully, you're able to jam the mechanism so the trap won't
open."
John the Rogue: "We walk across. I go first."

The Pit Trap (Old Style)
GM: "A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness."
John the Roguish: "We move forward, poking the floor ahead with our ten foot pole."
GM: Is about to say that the pole pushes open a pit trap, when he remembers something.
"Wait, you don't have the ten foot pole any more. You fed it to the stone idol." [if the
party still had the pole, John would have detected the trap automatically]
John the Roguish: "I didn't feed it to the idol, the idol ate it when I poked its head."
GM: "That doesn't mean you have the pole back. Do you go into the corridor?"
John the Roguish: "No. I'm suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped
in a square?"
GM: Mulls this over, because there's a pit trap right where John is looking. But it's dark,
so "No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn't see a pit trap that
easily, anyway." [A different referee might absolutely decide that John sees the trap,
since he's looking in the right place for the right thing].
John the Roguish: "Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I'm going to
pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal
some kind of pattern?"
GM: "Yeah, the water seems to be puddling a little bit around a square shape in the floor
where the square is a little higher than the rest of the floor."
John the Roguish: "Like there's a covered pit trap?"
GM: "Could be."
John the Roguish: "Can I disarm it?"
GM: "How?"
John the Roguish: "I don't know, maybe make a die roll to jam the mechanism?"
GM: "You can't see a mechanism. You step on it, there's a hinge, you fall. What are
you going to jam?"
John the Roguish: "I don't know. Okay, let's just walk around it."
GM: "You walk around it, then. There's about a two-foot clearance on each side."

Another Example:

The Ninja Jump (Modern)
We enter this example in the middle of combat.
GM: "You're up on the ten-foot high ledge, and down below, the goblin is about to attack
Frank the Cleric."
John the Roguish: "I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving
the sword blade deep into the goblin's back using the weight of my body and the fall to
cause tons of extra damage."
GM: "Seriously?"
John the Roguish" "Yeah."
Frank the Cleric: "Oh, hell, here we go again."
GM: "What feat are you using?"
John the Roguish: "I don't have a feat for it. I want to try it anyway. Untrained."
GM: "You don't have a leap attack or spring attack or anything like that?"
John the Roguish: "Nope."
GM: "It's just a regular attack, then. You might be able to get extra damage if you had a
trained skill that applied."
John the Roguish: "Okay, I rolled a 2."
GM: "That's a miss. And you fall to a prone position."
John the Roguish: "Hey, that's not fair. If it's just a normal attack, there shouldn't be a
chance for me to fall prone. If I had some chance to get a benefit I can see it, but I started
from a good tactical position and I didn't get anything but a regular attack with an
automatic chance to end up prone. That's not fair.
GM: "Okay, but even if you had a +2 from being up above, you still missed."
John the Roguish: "I'm just saying there's nothing in the rules that says I should end up
prone after making that attack."
Frank the Cleric: "I attack the goblin."
GM: "Okay, I'll tell you what. Roll against your jump skill with a target number of 10,
and if you succeed then you stay standing."
Frank the Cleric: "I attack the goblin."
John the Roguish: "I rolled a 9, but I have a dex modifier of +2, so it's an 11."
GM: "Okay, you're still standing."
Frank the Cleric: "I attack the goblin."

The Ninja Jump (Old Style)
We enter this example in the middle of combat.
GM: "You're up on the ten-foot high ledge, and down below, the goblin is about to attack
Frank the Cleric."
John the Roguish: "I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving
the sword blade deep into the goblin's back using the weight of my body and the fall to
cause tons of extra damage."
GM: "Seriously?"
John the Roguish" "Yeah."
Frank the Cleric: "Oh, hell, here we go again."
GM: [decides that he'll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but
failure will cause some sort of disaster.] "You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit."
John: "I rolled a 2."
GM: "Okay, you trip as you jump off the ledge and you get tangled up with the sword.
You knock the goblin down to the ground, but you don't land on your feet either. You're
both sprawled on the floor. Also, you may have hit yourself when you landed on the
goblin. Roll to hit again."
John: "I rolled a 15."
GM: "You stab yourself in the leg. Roll damage."
Frank the Cleric: "Roll high."
John the Roguish: "Screw you, Frank. I roll a 2."
GM: "Two points of damage, then. You don't take any falling damage, because the
goblin broke your fall. You're on the ground and so is he. Frank's standing there with
his mace, completely confused by what just happened."
Frank the Cleric: "While the goblin's sprawled on the ground, I slay him with a mighty
blow of my mace."
GM: "Roll to hit."
John the Roguish: "I don't see why I should be down on the ground."
GM: "You rolled a 2, that's a crappy roll, you got tangled in your sword, and you're on
the ground. You would have done double damage if you hit."
John the Roguish: "Where's that in the books?"
GM: "It's not. I just made it up. Frank, roll to hit."

[Cramulus]

Second Zen Moment: Player Skill, not Character Abilities

Original D&D and Swords & Wizardry are games of skill in a few areas where modern
games just rely on the character sheet. You don't have a "spot" check to let you notice
hidden traps and levers, you don't have a "bluff" check to let you automatically fool a
suspicious city guardsman, and you don't have a "sense motive" check to tell you when
someone's lying to your character. You have to tell the referee where you're looking for
traps and what buttons you're pushing. You have to tell the referee whatever tall tale
you're trying to get the city guardsman to believe. You have to decide for yourself if
someone's lying to your character or telling the truth. In a 0e game, you are always
asking questions, telling the referee exactly what your character is looking at, and
experimenting with things. Die rolls are much less frequent than in modern games.
Also: these games aren't simulations of what a dwarf raised in a particular society, and
having a particular level of intelligence, would do when faced with certain challenges.
Old-style play is about keeping your character alive and making him into a legend. The
player's skill is the character's guardian angel – call it the character's luck or intuition, or
whatever makes sense to you, but don't hold back on your skill as a player just because
the character has a low intelligence. Role-playing is part of the game, but it's not a
suicide pact with your character.

Know when to run. A good GM is impartial: he doesn't favor the party, and he doesn't
favor the monsters. But he's not playing a tournament against the players, where he's
restricted by rules and required to offer up well-gauged, well-balanced challenges.
Instead, he's there to be an impartial referee for the characters' adventures in a fantasy
world – NOT in a "game setting." Even on the first level of a dungeon, there might be
challenges too difficult for a first-level party of adventurers. Ask the one-armed guy in
the tavern; he may know. If you didn't think of checking the tavern for one-armed men,
consider it a comment on your skill as a player.


Third Zen Moment: Heroic, not Superhero
Old-style games have a human-sized scale, not a super-powered scale. At first level,
adventurers are barely more capable than a regular person. They live by their wits. But
back to the Zen moment. Even as characters rise to the heights of power, they aren't
picking up super-abilities or high ability scores. Truly high-level characters have
precious items accumulated over a career of adventuring; they usually have some
measure of political power, at least a stronghold. They are deadly when facing normal
opponents ... but they aren't invincible. Old school gaming (and again, this is a matter of
taste) is the fantasy of taking a guy without tremendous powers – a guy much like
yourself but somewhat stronger, or with slight magic powers – and becoming a king or a
feared sorcerer over time. It's not about a guy who can, at the start of the game, take on
ten club-wielding peasants at once. It's got a real-world, gritty starting point. And your
character isn't personally ever going to become stronger than a dragon. At higher levels,
he may be able to kill a dragon with his sword or with spells, but never by grabbing its
throat and strangling it in a one-on-one test of strength. To make a comic-book analogy,
characters don't become Superman; they become Batman. And they don't start as
Batman – Batman is the pinnacle. He's a bit faster than normal, a bit stronger than
normal, he's got a lot of cash, a Bat Cave, a butler, a henchman (Robin) and cool gadgets.
But he can't leap tall buildings in a single bound. If you don't get a feeling of
achievement with Batman instead of Superman as the goal, the old school gaming style
probably isn't right for your vision of what makes good and exciting fantasy. Old school
gaming is about the triumph of the little guy into an epic hero, not the development of an
epic hero into a superhuman being. There's nothing wrong with the latter, it's just that
old-style fantasy matches up with the former.


Fourth Zen Moment: Forget "Game Balance."
The old-style campaign is with fantasy world, with all its perils, contradictions, and
surprises: it's not a "game setting" which somehow always produces challenges of just
the right difficulty for the party's level of experience. The party has no "right" only to
encounter monsters they can defeat, no "right" only to encounter traps they can disarm,
no "right" to invoke a particular rule from the books, and no "right" to a die roll in every
particular circumstance. This sort of situation isn't a mistake in the rules. Game balance
just isn't terribly important in old-style gaming. It's not a tournament where the players
are against the GM. It's more like a story with dice: the players describe their actions,
the referee describes the results, and the story of the characters, epic or disastrous, grows
out of the combined efforts of referee and players. The referee will be just as surprised
by the results as the players are.

The rules aren't fragile, and the game doesn't collapse if someone makes a little mistake
or one character is temporarily more powerful than the others, or an encounter is "too
hard." Sometimes the referee will make a bad call. These aren't tragedies. A roleplaying
game is like the Internet – it doesn't break if you push the wrong buttons. Game
balance just isn't a critical matter.

One last point about game balance, though. Just as the players have no right to depend
upon a rule in the book, the referee has no right, ever, to tell the player what a character
decides to do. That's the player's decision (unless there's a charm spell going). The
referee in an old-style game has much more "power" than in a modern game, and may
become tempted to dictate what characters are doing as well. If this happens, the whole
game becomes nothing more than one guy telling a story while others roll dice. Just as
with a modern-style game, this sort of behavior severely damages the fun of the game.
You don't make chess moves for your opponent in a game of chess, and the referee
doesn't play the characters in 0e (or modern games, for that matter).




Tips for Players
1) View the entire area you've mapped out as the battleground; don't plan on taking on
monsters in a single room. They may try to outflank you by running down corridors.
Establish rendezvous points where the party can fall back to a secure defensive position.
2) Scout ahead, and try to avoid wandering monsters which don't carry much treasure.
You're in the dungeon to find the treasure-rich lairs. Trying to kill every monster you
meet will weaken the party before you find the rich monsters.
3) Don't assume you can defeat any monster you encounter.
4) Keep some sort of map, even if it's just a flow chart. If you get lost, you can end up in
real trouble – especially in a dungeon where wandering monster rolls are made
frequently.
5) Ask lots of questions about what you see. Look up. Ask about unusual stonework.
Test floors before stepping.
6) Protect the magic-user. He's your nuke.
7) Hire some cannon fodder. Don't let the cannon fodder start to view you as a weak
source of treasure.
Spears can usually reach past your first rank of fighters, so a phalanx of hirelings
works well.
9) Check in with the grizzled one-armed guy in the tavern before each foray; he may have
suddenly remembered more details about the area.

[Cramulus]

Tips for the Game Master

You've realized by now that your job in an old-style game is a lot different than it is in a
modern-style game. Your job isn't to remember and apply rules correctly, it's to make
up on-the-spot rulings and describe them colorfully. It's your job to answer questions
(some of which will be off-the-wall) and to give the players lots and lots of decisions to
make. You are the rulebook, and there is no other. Just as the players need to lose the
idea that their characters are in a level-appropriate, tournament-like environment, you've
got to lose the idea that situations are governed by rules. They're not governed by rules,
they're governed by you. Focus on making the situations fun, not on making them
properly run.

Tao of the GM: The Way of the Ming Vase
If you've got a choice between running a predictable, fairly-executed combat, or on the
other hand running a combat in which swords break, people fall, someone throws up from
a blow to the stomach, a helmet goes spinning away, someone gets tangled up in a
curtain, or other such events outside the formal rules ... embrace the chaos. This is the
rule of the Ming Vase. Why is it the rule of the Ming Vase? Look at it this way. There's
a priceless Ming Vase sitting on a table in the middle of a room where combat rages on
all sides, swords swinging, chairs flying, crossbow bolts whizzing through the air. There
is, however, no rule covering the chance of some random event that might affect the
priceless Ming Vase. I'm not sure I need to say more, but just in case, I will. If someone
rolls a natural "1," or a "3," or even if nothing specifically happens to trigger it, it's
blatantly irresponsible of you not to start some chain of events involving the Ming vase.
A sword goes flying – the table underneath the vase is hit by the sword – the vase is
swaying back and forth, ready to topple – can anyone catch it, perhaps making a long
dive-and-slide across the floor? That's gaming. Is it unfair? Well, it's certainly outside
the existing rules. It's your job to create events outside the standard sequence of "I roll to
hit. They roll to hit. I roll to hit."

In combat, bad rolls can spontaneously generate bad consequences (make sure you do
this to both sides, not just the players). You don't need a table to generate bad
consequences – just make it up on the spot. Good rolls might get good consequences,
such as disarming the foe, making him fall, smashing him against a wall for extra
damage, pushing him backward, etc. Again, make it up on the spot. Remember the Ming
Vase!

Tao of the GM: The Way of the Moose Head
Without spot checks and automatic information gathering rolls, players don't have a way
to generate solutions by rolling dice and checking their character sheets. They have to
think. That's how player skill comes into the game. Compare these two examples of
exploring a room where a secret compartment is hidden behind a moose head on the wall.


The Mysterious Moose Head (Modern Style)
John the Rogue: "We open the door. Anything in the room?"
GM: "No monsters. There's a table, a chair, and a moose head hanging on the wall."
John the Rogue: "I search the room. My search skill is +5. I roll a 19, so that's a 24."
GM: "Nice roll. You discover that the moose head slides to the side, and there's a secret
panel behind it."
The Mysterious Moose Head (Old Style)
John the Roguish: "We open the door. Anything in the room?"
GM: "No monsters. There's a table, a chair, and a moose head hanging on the wall."
John the Roguish: "We check the ceiling and the floor – we don't step in yet. If there's
nothing on the ceiling and the floor, we push down on the floor with the ten foot pole,
and then I step inside, cautiously."
GM: "Nothing. You're in the room."
John the Roguish: "I search the room."
GM: "What are you checking?"
John the Roguish: "I eyeball the table and chairs to see if there's anything unusual, then I
run my hands over them to see if there's anything weird."
GM: "Nope."
John the Roguish: "Are the moose's eyes following me or anything?"
GM: "No."
John the Roguish: "I check the moose head."
GM: "How?"
John the Roguish: "I twist the horns, look in the mouth, see if it tips sideways ..."
GM: "When you check to see if it tips sideways, it slides a little to the side."
John the Roguish: "I slide it more."
GM: "There's a secret compartment behind it."
In other words, die rolls don't provide a short cut or a crutch to discover and solve all
those interesting puzzles and clues scattered throughout a dungeon. The same goes for
handling traps (unless there's a thief class), and the same goes for

You might be saying to yourself: "God, that sounds time-consuming." Sure enough, this
sort of detailed exploration of the adventure area occupies more time in old-style gaming
than it does in modern gaming. 0e is a game of exploration, searching, and figuring
things out just as much as it's a game of combat. Game designers, over the years,
decided that the game should focus on the fighting and the more cinematic moments of
the game, with less time "wasted" on the exploration and investigation side of things.
Over time, more and more detail was put into combat rules; and die rolls replaced the part
of the game that focused on mapping, noticing details, experimentation, and deduction.
Don't conclude, though, that the exploration part of the game makes everything slower.
Combat is so much faster-paced in 0e that there's more time available for the
exploration/thinking part of the game. In my experience, a session of 0e allows the
players to get through many more combats and investigations than the same amount of
gaming time would permit using Third Edition D&D. Fourth Edition D&D seems to
have a faster combat system than Third Edition (the game hasn't been out long enough, at
the time of this writing, for me to have played more than three sessions), but what I've
said above still seems to be true – perhaps to a lesser degree.


Tao of the GM: Your Abstract Combat-Fu Must be Strong
One criticism that's often leveled against old-style gaming is that it's boring to just have
a series of: "I roll a d20. Miss. I roll a d20. Hit. I roll a d20. Miss. I roll a d20. Miss."
Except for very quick and unimportant combats, old-style combats aren't done like this,
or it would indeed be a little boring.

The reason old-style combat isn't boring – and in fact it's often much more colorful than
modern-style combat – is because of things that aren't in the rules but are in the combats.
In these games, a player can describe and attempt virtually anything he can think of. He
doesn't need to have any sort of game-defined ability to do it. He can try to slide on the
ground between opponents, swing from a chandelier and chop at a distant foe, taunt an
opponent into running over a pit trap ... whatever he wants to try. That doesn't, of
course, mean that he'll succeed. It's your job to handle these attempts colorfully and
fairly, choosing whatever probability you think is the right one and rolling some dice.
Sometimes the answer is just, "there's no way that's going to work; I'm not even going to
roll for it." When the players truly understand – and it may take a while – that they truly
aren't constrained by abilities, feats, skills or rules, you'll find that combat becomes quite
interesting.

It's also your job to inject events from outside the rules during combat. "You rolled a 1.
Your sword goes flying." "You rolled a 1. You trip and fall." "You rolled a 1. Your
sword sticks into a crack in the floor." "Hey, you rolled a 20. You spin around and gain
an extra attack." Hey, you rolled a 20. You slay the orc, kick his body off your sword,
and blood spatters into the eyes of one of the orcs behind him. He's not getting an attack
this round." "Hey, you rolled a 20. You knock his sword out of his hand even though
you didn't do enough damage to kill him." That's just a set of examples for the various
ways you could handle natural rolls of 1 or 20. Each result is different, and none of them
were official – you just made them up out of nowhere. You're being consistent – the
high and low rolls always generate a good or bad result – but exactly what happens is
pretty much a matter of you deciding what seems realistic, or really fun.

Also, flavorful combat isn't just in the naturally high and low rolls. A character leaps
onto a table, but the table breaks. Swinging into combat on a rope succeeds – but the
rope breaks and the character ends up swinging into the wrong group of monsters. A hit
by a monster causes one of the characters to drop a torch. The feathered plume on
someone's helmet is chopped off by a missed stroke. All these little details add to the
quality of old-style combat, and change it dramatically from a sequence of d20 rolls into
something far more alive and exciting. This doesn't mean, of course, that every swing of
a sword blade and every step into combat must generate lavish descriptions and details
from you. It's a matter of pacing, and frankly I can't explain how to do it well other than
to say you'll get the hang of it.

Keep in mind, too, that it's not just the players who can use unorthodox tactics. Monsters
do unexpected things, too – throwing a bench in the attempt to knock down two
characters at once, monsters that try to swing by chandeliers, and other such challenges
that don't often surface in games with tighter rules.

Finally, try to put some "toys" into the combat areas some of the time: benches, places
where you can fight from the high ground, slippery patches, etc. Because of the speed of
the abstract combat system, unusual tricks by the players and monsters don't cause delays
while the rules are consulted. It's all you – you are the rulebook.

It's true that from time to time the "tape" of an old-style combat is exactly like this.
Some combats are unimportant enough that no one bothers to try anything particularly
unusual, and if there's not a fumble or a critical hit, and the party doesn't get into hot
water then this kind of combat won't use much tactical thinking on anyone's part. So
why even have it? Because every quick, less-significant combat uses up resources. And
when I say quick, I mean very, very quick. In modern games, where combat contains
special moves and lots of rules, combat takes up lots of time. An "insignificant" combat
is a complete waste of gaming time. In older rules, a small combat can take five minutes
or less. So small combats work very well as a way of depleting those precious resources
in a race against time. The players will actually seek to avoid minor combats when
there's not much treasure involved. They're looking for the lairs and the treasure troves,
not seeking to kill everything that crosses their path. The classic old-style adventure
contains "wandering monsters" that can randomly run into and attack the party, and some
modern gamers see this as arbitrary. It's not. It's another instance of running a race
against time – if the characters aren't smart and fast in getting to the lairs and troves, if
they shilly-shally and wander, they're going to lose hit points and spells fighting
wandering monsters who carry virtually no treasure. This is also, by the way, why olderstyle
games award experience points for gaining treasure as well as for killing monsters.
If killing monsters is the only way to gain experience points, then one monster's pretty
much the same as another – the players don't have much of an incentive to avoid combat.
When treasure is the best source of experience points and there's a race against time, the
players have every incentive to use all their skill and creativity to avoid encounters that
drain their resources. They've got to press on to the mission before they become too
weak to keep going.

So that's why combat is abstract, or at least it's one reason. Also, of course, fast combat
mimics the pace of combat – in more complex games, players may have to sit for a while,
contemplating the next "move" like a chess game. I've heard of egg timers being used to
limit thinking time. With old-style, abstract combat, this just doesn't happen (not often,
anyway). Abstract combat also opens the door for one of the things that's most important
about old-style gaming – the freewheeling feel of "anything goes."

Tao of the GM: Way of the Donner Party
Old-style gaming has a strong component of what's often called "resource management."
Spells get used up, hit points are lost, torches get used up, and food gets used up. This is
another part of the game that's been minimized in later editions (particularly in 4th
edition). The theory is that no one wants to spend time keeping track of mundane things
like torches and food. And it's a good point – a poor referee can bollix this up if he
spends too much time on it. However, one thing you have to realize about 0e: it is indeed
a game where managing resources is at the game's very heart. In fact, I would have
called this a fifth Zen moment of realization except that resource management is still a
factor in later games – just to a lesser degree. Nevertheless, from the referee's standpoint
you have to manage your game based on this premise: excitement and tension increase as
the party is deeper and deeper into the danger zone and their resources are running low.

It takes artistry on your part: higher level adventures shouldn't be about declining food
and light sources, they should be about declining hit points and spells. In lower level
adventures, food and light sources can be the key to success or failure of an expedition
(remember, 0e is about the little guy).

Here's the key point in terms of running the adventure, things to include so that resource
management adds to the excitement instead of being a chore. First, you have to keep
track of time in the dungeon so that you can quickly tell the players what resources to
mark off their character sheets. If you lose track of game time, you lose quality in the
game. Second, there has to be a meaningful choice for the players between pressing
forward or retreating from the dungeon. Pressing forward with low resources is
obviously risky, and there should be an incentive to keep going without just going back to
memorize spells and heal up for a second try. These incentives and disincentives might
include the following (1) high cost of living in an inn, (2) a reward from the local baron
for completing a particular mission quickly (the reward declines per day), (3) a prisoner
might be killed – and the kidnappers might even have given a deadline for this, (4) the
way back has become blocked by a monster, trap, or portcullis, and another way out must
be found, (5) the party is lost due to a teleportation trap or bad mapping, (6) the treasure
the party seeks is being destroyed or consumed with time, (7) the party has been told not
to come back out until some mission is finished – always a good trick when the party has
legal troubles, ( a wager or other social situation means that the party will lose money
or be generally ridiculed if they return without a certain amount of treasure, or (9) the
party has to pay a fee each time they enter the dungeon. I'm sure you can think of more.
In some way, the adventure needs to be a race against time, even if the pressure isn't
necessarily all that high (cost of living, for example, is a very low-pressure race against
time, and rescuing a hostage is very high-pressure).

At higher levels, creating the race against time requires a bit more creativity on your part
– especially because you don't want to make it into something that forces the players into
any particular adventure. The players should generally have a choice about where they
go and what sorts of adventures they want to risk, so you've got to avoid overusing the
whole "the king will have you executed if you don't rescue the princess" sort of
adventure hook. It's okay sometimes, because running away from the king's guards is
also a legitimate choice for the adventurers, but never eliminate that choice.

Final reminders:
You are the rulebook. There is no other rulebook.
Make it fast, make it colorful, and make it full of decisions for the players.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

When I started gaming, we didn't have dice.  We didn't even have paper chits with numbers on them.  You had to whack your head against the edge of the table, and count the blood drops.  You had to WANT your crits, back then.  And there was none of this sissy "saving throw" business.

And LARPers?  They tied a dozen cats to their naked bodies, and climbed into the shower to get the full effect of a fight.

(On a more serious note, I have all the 0e stuff, including Chainmail, and I can scan it if anyone's interested in playing that clunky old bastard.)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, the game balance thing: I still have a copy of Tegal Manor, a classic old Judge's Guild adventure.  Though it had some truly amazing portions, it also had a room with 10 skeletons directly adjacent to a room with a Balrog.  These rooms were within 2 encounter areas of the first room.

If the PCs could handle the Balrog, the skeletons were a boring waste of time...However, if they couldn't handle the Balrog, neither could they escape from it, guaranteeing a TPK unless the DM obviously spared the party.

0/3 desirable outcomes.

[Luna]

 

Good stuff here, thanks for sharing... and for the walk down memory lane.

(Though my current game, what with sliding in spilled spleen, definitely has some of the "old school" flavor to it.  Is tasty.)

[Cramulus]

I felt like this did a good job of summing up the style I was introduced to by the first group I joined.

You'd spent a long time with descriptions. "I sheath my sword." "Is it on your left or right hip?" "My left hip" "Okay." (no effect on the game, just our visualization of the scene) Searching was much more based on Q&A than on die rolls. If the DM had a trap in a room, he had to have some mechanical idea about how the trap worked. The rogue's disarm would be based on a verbal description.

Since then I've gradually moved on to the more "modern" style. I do feel like I'm missing a bit of the depth of the old system, though I do like the speed of resolution. I felt like the old school games got bogged down a lot by kind of pointless - albeit flavorful -  interactions. I remember spending 30 minutes roleplaying out interactions with shopkeepers. Random conversations you have in taverns.

Some fights took on the flavor of "The Rookie".. you know, that movie where the little kid becomes a major league baseball pitcher? In the final act of the movie, he gets hit in the shoulder and his magic throwing arm goes back to being the throwing arm of a 13 year old. The only way he can win the game is through a bunch of gimmick plays and cheap tricks - like pretending to throw the ball, or taunting the guy on the base until he rushes the mound. There were no scaling metrics in old D&D, you just tried to figure out how to best your opponent. Power level was hard to assess. a monster's hit dice and xp value would give you some clue, but they were often deceptive. (My 1st edition Fiend Folio says the Lolth, Spider Goddess of the Drow, only has 66 hit points. In 4th edition, a level 1 boss fight can have over 100 HP). To beat a nasty monster, you'd have to use creative tricks like dumping marbles on the ground and getting him to run over them. Confuse him by trying to speak to him in Elvish. Don't play by the book.

One of the things I appreciate about the "modern" style is the emphasis on fun gameplay. As the gaming tradition evolved, they fine tuned it to be more accessible to casual players, they made scaling a bit more of a science, and they revisited a lot of the rough edges which emerge from the old school style. Let's take traps, for example.

In old D&D, dungeons were filled with traps. This meant that everywhere you went, your party was constantly poking at the ground using a 10 foot pole. Every time you approached a door or chest, you'd describe your search in elaborate detail. If you got hit by a trap, it was usually because you weren't being anal enough. In gameplay terms, this means that the way to beat the dungeon was to have the rogue narrate a search before you do anything. This means hearing the rogue say "I probe around the edge, keeping my eyes peeled for latches, wires, or buttons" about 100 times.

Some people call this "Gotcha!" style DMming. Even if your party searches every door they get to, the one time you forget to describe it, the DM yells GOTCHA and somebody falls into the floor. In 4th ed, they changed the nature of traps in the game - most traps occur during combat, not in the narration between encounters. This keeps you from having to say "I search for traps" at every goddamn door, chest, and hallway.

I'm reminded of this classic 2nd edition dungeon, The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb. Every time you turned a key in the dungeon, the DM would ask you if you turned it clockwise or counterclockwise. If you picked the wrong one, you'd usually get electrified, or it would release a Grue or something terrible like that. There was little way to know in advance which direction was correct. I'm not entirely sure why they did that or why they'd think this was fun. I guess it was just to make the dungeon more "lethal". Which it totally was. It had all sorts of things like "If the players drink from the water fountain, the poison kills them instantly." Even experimentation could often get you fucked.


That being said, what I miss about the oldschool game design was the freeform sandbox nature of it. I once ran a campaign where the players decided to go totally off the story and try to assassinate the king. Through a combination of ingenuity and good die rolls, they did. Then they tried to put themselves into power. It took a few sessions but they finally did it. Then they decided they wanted to build a dungeon to keep their treasure in it. The next few months of gameplay were spent mapping the vast labyrinth, thinking up traps, and capturing monsters to dump into the maze. When the peasants revolted against the unjust kings, the characters hid in the dungeon and cackled with glee as hordes of adventurers died in their traps. The PCs didn't even roll any dice, I was basically just talking for two hours based on notes they'd given me. They loved it. And it was totally off the tracks of traditional adventure design.


So in conclusion, there are some things I miss, and a lot of things I don't miss about "Old School" gaming.

[Luna]

I've found that you can have a good time with just about ANY system, depending on your players (and, of course, your GM).  I found it a sad, sad thing when, while RPing at a comic book store, I found out that the players considered it a good session when they could brag about the loot or the experience points, rather than, "did you SEE the look on Fred's face when he rolled that 1?  I thought I'd piss myself laughing when his sword went out the window and he had to fight that thing with a broom handle!"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That being said, what I miss about the oldschool game design was the freeform sandbox nature of it.

You can still do that.  In fact, the rules make it easier.

For example, a rogue searches a door for traps, and finds a trigger in the lock.  He then describes how he plans to disable or bypass it, and the disable device roll says whether or not he pulls it off.  If he described it wrong, he's still fucked (to be fair, information should be given to him based on his perception check).  Ask any mechanic...Knowing what has to be done, and being able to actually DO it are two very different things.

And the old step & die traps weren't fun.  I have absolutely no sense of nostalgia for them.  They were frustrating, and they felt like cheap shots, no matter what side of the screen you are on.

The problem isn't the rules, it's just that the rules have allowed for very lazy DMing.  Don't want the party to run around throttling dragons?  Then a) don't allow "magic shops", and b) don't put the +6 belt of physical perfection in your damn campaign.  If they MAKE the items using creation feats, make sure there's lots of exotic ingredients they need (ie, adventure hook).  Item creation feats shouldn't be disallowed, but neither should they be a simple gold -->  humungous magic item converter.

We're currently enjoying an experiment in WAY over-powered characters in Rappan Athuk.  It's demonstrating several problems with the game mechanic, but more than that, it's demonstrating several problems with the writers of the adventure, and give clear examples of what to avoid.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, using the rules as written takes away a lot of that superhero shit.  The perception skill (spot/search/listen), for example, allows a PC to search a 5X10 area with one check, not an entire room including all the doors and a moosehead.  Make 'em roll out each one...They'll get a little more selective about what they search and how.

[Luna]

I ran Tomb of Horrors, many years ago.

Once.

Lost pretty much the whole party in the first main hallway.

[Cramulus]

There's a 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide kicking around my apartment. The other day I was reading a passage giving DMs advice for when a character dies and the player rolls up a new level 1 character. The level 1 guy is in a party with higher level characters, so how should people treat that?

The DMG says that the high level adventurers should treat the low level guy like they're training him. He should follow the party around, taking notes and observing how the high levels do things. They shouldn't let him get into combat yet. The paragraph concludes that by the time the character has reached 3rd or 4th level, you (the DM) should let the party treat him like an equal. So basically they're saying that after you die, resign yourself to not being able to play for a few sessions. Booo!

For example, a rogue searches a door for traps, and finds a trigger in the lock.  He then describes how he plans to disable or bypass it, and the disable device roll says whether or not he pulls it off.  If he described it wrong, he's still fucked (to be fair, information should be given to him based on his perception check).  Ask any mechanic...Knowing what has to be done, and being able to actually DO it are two very different things.

Totally - I'm running D&D for a totally new group right now. Only 1 person in the group has any D&D experience prior to this campaign. It's fun to watch them experiment and figure out how things work. I have to keep reminding them that die rolls aren't the be-all end-all of what their character can do, and that they are no substitution for roleplay. Sometimes they ask me things like, "What do I have to roll to know whether or not this guy is lying?" and the characters trained in Insight get frustrated when I say, "No die roll, just think about it." They're getting really used to scaled encounters too - next week they're going to find out that some town guards have a much better perception than the rogue's bluff or sneak skills.

If you say "I search for traps", you make a regular die roll. If you describe your search, or roleplay it somehow, I usually award a +2 to +4 depending on your description. I am considering whether or not no description should actually confer a -2, but maybe that's overly harsh.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I ran Tomb of Horrors, many years ago.

Once.

Lost pretty much the whole party in the first main hallway.

I ran it recently.  The party waltzed through, using the divination spell, and searching like a proper party ought to do. 

The last time I had run it, the two fleeing survivors could see daylight when they got mashed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sometimes they ask me things like, "What do I have to roll to know whether or not this guy is lying?" and the characters trained in Insight get frustrated when I say, "No die roll, just think about it."

That's kind of harsh.  The players are not the characters, and don't have the skills the characters have.  Nerf-batting their skills says that there's no reason whatsoever to put any thought into skill allocation.

"Insight" (Sense motive for us) is a skill that should be rolled when the player feels suspicious.  If they make the roll, they should get the result.  If they check EVERY TIME an NPC talks to them, they should get a reputation for being a paranoid asshole, and suffer on charisma checks accordingly (no need to tell them why, they'll figure it out or they won't).

[Cramulus]

Frustrating moment in DMming from last week's game----

The PCs are fighting this thing called a Thought Scourge. Part of its flavor is that it attacks you by testing your will to fight. It doesn't actually hit you, it looks into your mind and pulls out the part of you that wants to give up.

It has one attack which deals 3d6 psychic damage. If you get hit with it, you can reduce the damage by 5 by channeling the attack towards another character (who then takes 2d6 damage). I told the party that in order to use this ability they had to insult the character who was taking the damage.

The first person to use this option told the party tiefling "You smell". I told him that it worked, but he'd have to come up with a better insult next time. "What do you mean?" he asked me. "I mean that you have to insult his character. This is a test of will - if your'e going to share the psychic pain, you have to make him feel it too." the guy looked at me and said, "Really? Do I have to?"

Luckily, at this point the fighter said, "Dude, this is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. If you just want to roll dice, we should be playing Sorry."

could have hugged him right there




That's the sort of thing that I don't recall ever happening in my 2nd ed games.