When "Old School" was the "Only School"

I've found a lot of talk on various forums these days about "OSR" - Old School Renaissance or Old School Revival depending on who one asks. I'm going to wager you already are familiar with what OSR entails, and while I encourage you to read on, I'm aware that today's younger audience seeks only a bullet point style summary, and actual prose is avoided by all but the most wise. For those who wish to skip to the tl;dr click here. For those of you who obviously have at least a +1 to Wisdom, read on!

For those who are unfamiliar with the term OSR (which almost begs to ask 'How DID you stumble upon this cobweb laden corner of the web?') it refers to a play style in tabletop role-playing games which draws inspiration from the earliest days of tabletop RPGs in the 1970s, especially Dungeons & Dragons. Broadly, OSR games encourage a tonal fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons as it was played in the first decade of the game's existence—less emphasis on linear adventure plots and overarching metaplots and a greater emphasis on player agency.   [Wikipedia]

My reason for this post is to introduce myself to you, gentle reader, and share some of my personal gaming history in hopes of helping those I've seen on various other RPG  (role playing game) forums who seem to be extremely dissatisfied with their gaming experience. I've derived immense joy from my 40+ years in the hobby (most of those years spent as the "forever DM") and it saddens me to read of those who are frustrated, angry, and disillusioned with what certainly should be a really entertaining cooperative creative endeavor and social outlet. It is my hope that my observations and suggestions based on 40+ years of play might serve to aid the reader in finding the right game and style to match their particular taste.

The 80's
I was introduced to D&D in 1981, back when dinosaurs still roamed wild. We started our game with one of my new college friends taking the role of Dungeon Master (since he had played in high school) and the Moldvay version of Basic D&D.  

Our DM took about two weeks to prep the ruins of an abandoned castle on an enormous 11" x 17" pad of graph paper. We rolled up our characters and started the game standing before the rotted drawbridge, staring at the weed overgrown entrance to the ruined fortress. Less than an hour into the game I realized I was hopelessly hooked on this new game as we began our exploration of the multi floored castle and the dungeon levels underneath.

Being totally new to the entire world of fantasy role playing, we were thoroughly captivated by the game as it was presented. We had a fairly high character death rate, mostly due to our total inexperience with the game, though the fragility of 1st level characters cannot be overlooked. When we finally hit 2nd level we thought we were kings of the world.

When we hit 3rd level the Cook version of the "Expert" set of rules were brought into play, which introduced travel through the wilderness, new, higher level spells and deadlier random wilderness encounters. 

While many today derisively scoff at this "kiddie version" of D&D and the simplistic play style it provided, I would argue that, at the time, it was a perfect level of sophistication for an introduction into the hobby. We may scoff today at the simplicity of the Model T Ford, but the process by which it was made is still utilized (though improved,) so I would encourage any who are dismissive of anything more than a week old to reconsider their perspective.

Over the last 40+ years, I've watched the level of rule complexity in my games take a "bell curve" shape; now that free time to play is less plentiful and player schedules are filled to overflowing, complex rule sets are pushed aside in favor of lighter, easier, OSR style rules to expedite quick resolution and more "bang for one's buck."

When our founding DM finally migrated us to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, the game became an "all you can eat buffet" of options; separating race and class  being one of the immediate differences that made character death less tragic, as there were so many more combinations to explore. Allowing for multi-classed characters made the options seemingly infinite. 

In addition, other games were now being released, and we eagerly experimented with other genres/games such as Gamma World and Top Secret. I still chuckle as I recall our founding DM turned "Administrator" meeting us on a public transit bus to subtly hand off a manila envelope with our first "Top Secret Mission Briefing." (I know... totally cringe by today's standards, but it was so fun at the time.)

Eventually, the college workload forced our founding DM to retire his duties as our "DM of Doom." I inherited the reins and became the "forever DM", which satisfied my creative urges as an actor, writer, and director, and play continued as much as class loads allowed, usually with marathon weekend games running well into the night if not until dawn.

College eventually ended and my initial group parted ways, but it did not take long for me to start up again with new friends that I had made. Over time, I introduced my new core group of 4 players to a variety of game systems, including Middle Earth Role Playing, Rolemaster, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, GURPS, and the 2nd edition of AD&D. When the five of us ended up living together our time spent "rolling the bones" was so frequent one of the players refers to those years in his life as his 'period of no-growth'." In hindsight, I'll admit my focus on gaming was probably at borderline addiction levels; when we weren't playing I was mentally designing adventure hooks, NPCs, tombs and long lost locales for exploration. We also spent a lot of time discussing various game systems, debating the merits of certain action resolution conventions and experimenting with our own solutions.

Unguarded Treasure
There are several hidden gems that can be found in this brief stroll down 1980s Memory Lane that I'll use to close this initial post. These little "gems of advice" might help you, gentle reader, in finding that elusive, high quality group/game that you may be seeking. Some important things to consider when trying to find or form a solid group would be:

• Everyone should be "on the same page" when it comes to key aspects of the game. I think this is one of the most important things to consider when searching for a group. A few of the most important aspects on which I think any group should find common ground before starting a campaign are:
  
  
• The tone of the campaign 
  This one is pretty obvious; if everyone wants to play a gritty, realistic game (ala "Lord of the Rings") but one player is looking for something more along the lines of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" there is a disconnect that will quickly sour the flavor of the game. 
  
  
• Tone should also include some discussion as to magic (if it exists in your game) and how common magic is in everyday life. Some players will want to play in a "high magic" game where a medieval tavern might have ice elementals powering refrigerators and freezers and continuous light balls have been cast on top of posts to illuminate the streets at night, while others may want to play in a world where one could travel weeks without ever seeing a wizard or other spell casting character.
  
  
• Level of commitment to the game
  This is important for both players and the referee, and there should be some understanding as to what is expected from all participants. I've heard of players eagerly writing 30 pages of "character background" and then being bitterly disappointed at everyone else who failed to do the same, or game masters designing a novel's worth of world history for their game that the players never read nor reference. Those who wish to go to such lengths are certainly welcome to do so (and I for one always applaud those of a like creative mindset) but they should realize those efforts are more for their own satisfaction, and should not expect similar "over the top" efforts when a lower level of commitment has been agreed upon by the group.
  
  
• Those who are inconsistent in attendance, or who continuously "show up but fail to be present" will drive down the quality of the game and the general level of enjoyment. When such behavior becomes noticeable, talks should be held and decisions made as to whether or not the status of "in absentia" should be made permanent.
  
  
• Complexity (or "crunch" as it is sometimes called)
  This should also be discussed and a level agreed upon before play. There is a vast offering of various game systems from which to choose, and finding the right set of rules is just as important as finding the right group of players. Some people absolutely love the deep detail that some games provide, while others look for something lighter and easier to learn and play. Some take comfort in knowing that "there's a rule for that" while others would rather allow the referee to make ad hoc rulings in the name of expediency. There is no right or wrong option, but everyone should be in agreement as to the level of crunch they are willing to learn and employ.
  
  
• Players should realize that if they want to play a "crunch heavy" game they should be ready and willing to learn the details of the rules as thoroughly as possible. This helps take some of the pressure off of the referee, who has plenty to do even before the first die is rolled.
  
  
• It has been my experience that the amount of time the players and referee can commit to the game (both in preparation and in actual play time) is directly proportional to the level of complexity that the game's rules provide. 
  
• When we were all living under the same roof and playing almost every day, the Rolemaster system (with all of its various tables and charts) was perfectly acceptable to all of us. Later groups that I started, which had far less time available to play, never even considered using such a "top heavy" game system.

• We all eagerly subscribed to the philosophy of 'home-brewed rules'  and we weren't afraid to tinker with RAW (Rules As Written.)
  
  
• Below is an excerpt from Moldvay Basic: 
  
  
• "...if, after playing the rules as written for a while, you or your referee (the Dungeon Master) think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

I've seen many "home-brew" rule suggestions labeled by those who claim to be "old school purists" as "FOE" (Fake (or False) Old-school Enthusiast) which is a contradiction to the "Old School" thought process since the rules themselves encourage such changes. If we examine the definition of "OSR" above, it specifically refers to a "tonal fidelity", not a "mechanical fidelity." If you decide you want to reconfigure the thief skill table to be resolved using 2d6 instead of d%, I would say that falls well within the scope of the excerpt quoted above, and pronunciations of "FOE-GYG" (Get Ye Gone) should be ignored, as any true enthusiast of the OSR mindset would appreciate the effort put forth into any form of evaluation and subsequent modification.

[Update] I've since noticed a few places now adding "mechanical fidelity" to their definition of OSR; I would continue to refer the reader back to the excerpt above - if you and your group want to flip a coin instead of rolling a polyhedral die you should absolutely start saving that loose change for game night. 

• All the members of our group were friends before we were players, which I think helped immensely as we were well versed with each others' quirks and idiosyncratic behaviors. I can't recall a time when we ever disagreed to a point where rage-quitting or simply storming out of a game session was considered. 
  
  
• I know that many today attempt to play online, and I think some of the frustration and poor game experiences of which I've read on various other forums is a direct result of this particular play option. The adage "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD" certainly should be considered when deciding if you want to play virtually or in person. I do think that the extra effort it takes to assemble a group in person makes everyone a little more invested in making sure the time spent around the table is not wasted.
  
  This is not to say one can't build a strong group online, but be aware it takes extra effort and there are complications that come with online play that don't exist at an "in person" game, so all participants should be aware and adjust their expectations accordingly.
  
  
• No one else should be telling you how to play your game. The irony of this final statement is not lost on me, but the truth is you and your group are the best judges of what works for you. The ultimate goal should be for all the participants to have fun and look forward to the next session, and if all the members of your group are in agreement that a dark, gritty medieval fantasy game with high fantasy magic levels where the player characters are all mutated badgers from a far away planet trying to find their way home, then who cares what anyone else thinks?