RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat

13:44, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Olschool gaming is good for forum?

Posted by Grungi
Grungi
member, 1 post
Fri 2 Jan 2015
at 17:59
  • msg #1

Olschool gaming is good for forum?

In oldschool game you have to describe with details instead of a roll. And the players have to investigate the given problem with conversation. What are your opinion? This form  is essential for the oldschool game, but it is hard to do in forum.
truemane
member, 1923 posts
Firing magic missles at
the darkness!
Fri 2 Jan 2015
at 18:20
  • msg #2

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

I am extremely dubious of your definition of 'oldschool' in this context. In my experience, Old School games are all about dice-rolling. And in any system of any age in any school, the amount of detail/dice-rolling/conversation depends almost entirely on the game, the group, the GM.

Perhaps you could be more clear about what you're asking?
Brianna
member, 1935 posts
Fri 2 Jan 2015
at 18:40
  • msg #3

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

So if the system required any dice rolling the GM would do it?  That's not particularly 'old', just a style of game, and I don't see why it wouldn't work in a forum.
spectre
member, 765 posts
Myriad paths fell
away from that moment....
Fri 2 Jan 2015
at 18:53
  • msg #4

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

In reply to Grungi (msg # 1):

BTW, welcome to RPOL!
truemane
member, 1924 posts
Firing magic missles at
the darkness!
Fri 2 Jan 2015
at 19:10
  • msg #5

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

In reply to spectre (msg # 4):

Yes! That too.

I'm sorry. I should have started with that. I went into analytic mode right away.

Aside from defining old-school and whatever, the thing to take away is that pretty much any kind of game can work here, some of them just take more work than others.
facemaker329
member, 6529 posts
Gaming for over 30
years, and counting!
Sat 3 Jan 2015
at 11:40
  • msg #6

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

Yeah, my definition of 'Old-school Gaming' defaults to D&D Basic Edition (the red rulebook).  That meant explaining/describing what you were doing (the way we played, at least), and THEN rolling the dice to see how well you did it.

What you seem to be describing is more like diceless gaming...or like roleplaying on the old MUD/MUSH/MUSE/MU* (whatever else) systems, which was very akin to forum roleplaying, except that it was done real-time.
Skald
moderator, 587 posts
Whatever it is,
I'm against it
Sat 3 Jan 2015
at 13:21
  • msg #7

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

If you're talking real-time PC-PC-NPC conversations, then one of the strengths of thread based gaming is to facilitate time-delayed conversations that fit in with the posting capacities of players and the relative time differences between their various corners of the globe ... but the very keen could all arrange to login together and/or use the Chat link if that's what you're looking for.
Visceri22
member, 420 posts
This is a rather amusing
and catchy profile quote!
Sat 3 Jan 2015
at 17:49
  • msg #8

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 6):

I'm right there with you face. The red book (hand :P) of doom as we much later called it in my group. But especially in PBP format I feel that dice rolls should be a direct result of the RP not the other way around. In all of my games I do my best to write a post directed toward the scene that's happening and decide from there whether or not it warrants any rolls and make them from there. Of course I'll sometimes know a roll I want to make but even in those situations I will start with the plan of writing something that facilitates that roll.

TL;DR - Write then roll advocate.
Grungi
member, 2 posts
Sat 3 Jan 2015
at 17:51
  • msg #9

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

Hi,

I understand your point and i think I can agree with it, but I found this definition from the following article:

Quick Primer for Old School Gaming

http://www.lulu.com/items/volu.../1/print/3019374.pdf

(I would like to know How many agree with this opinion?)

In my country old school gamers believe, that in OSR games you have to avoid most of the dangers with small talk with the dm. (with investigation and good decision, to excuse himself from the situation) Because in the d20 there is too much random factor, and if you have to use it it won't be lucky for you.
So in oldschool fighting isn't the best option, but avoid is circumstantial and I am afraid if I play this style, my players will be bored.

There is a good example: Sword and Magic

http://grognardia.blogspot.hu/2008/10/kard-s-mgia.html


In this system the maximum skill value is 10 + ability bonus]. (so it is 13) If you have this maximum you can reach the heroic difficulty with 50% chance, what is not too good for a high level character (up to 10lvl). In lower level the situation is worse. So you can use your luck when you want to succes.
A warrior reach the 10 BAB in 15lvl (There is monster with AC27, but it isn't rare AC above 20)
My question is is it real that oldschool about luck and avoid? Someone told, that in the begining the main goal was the treasure (and xp if you exchange it with trasure), not beat the enemy and solve the problem (save the princess eg.).
truemane
member, 1925 posts
Firing magic missles at
the darkness!
Sat 3 Jan 2015
at 20:30
  • msg #10

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

Ah. Thank you for that. Your definitions make more sense now.

Some thoughts, in no particular order.

1. That article is written with a clear slant and sounds a little condescending. And it only partially matches my experience. I think it mostly just describes different playstyles, each of which existed in oldschool gaming, and each of which exists now. I think the distinction it's trying to draw is false. The lack of specific rules did mean that there was a lot more 'winging it' involved, but a lot of the rest depends entirely on who was playing. I've know old school GM's who played like 'modern' GM's and vice versa. The article writer is trying to draw universal rules from his own experience. Ad his experience is by no means universal.

2. My players back in my earliest days of gaming would fight anything that looked like a threat. Or looked liked it might become a threat. Or looked at them wrong. Or had cool stuff. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. For my players, the fighting and the rolling WAS the fun, so they called for rolls and busted heads every chance they got.

3. Difficulty of encounters vs player abilities is very much a factor of the GM. No matter what numbers your characters have on their sheets, there are encounters that they can beat easily and encounters they can't. And lots of GM's back then only gave their players encounters they could beat and lots of GM's now warn players that they can never be sure.

4. And even assuming that 1st Edition D&D was a deadlier game than future editions, in my players' cases, it didn't necessarily mean that they were more cautious or fought less. Often, they just leaped out screaming, swords waving, and if they died, they rolled up a new character and kept going.

5. The playstyle you describe, with a lot of small back-and-forth discussion with the GM, would take a long time and would be very difficult to model on Rpol. 'Discussions' are hard here, with the act that some players only post once every day or two. Things work best when the situation is presented, there's one round of chatter, and then things move forward. This is why, for example, a lot of Shadowrun games flounder. The first step in a Shadowrun game is often to have a detailed, tactical discussion, with many rounds of questions, answers, clarifications. And on Rpol that kind of thing can be boring and frustrating.

6. The article claims that newer edition added non-combat rules as a way of de-emphasizing those aspects of the game and making combat more important. But I've found the opposite is true. Once a system models things other than combat, then those thing become a bigger part of the game.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:48, Sat 03 Jan 2015.
facemaker329
member, 6530 posts
Gaming for over 30
years, and counting!
Sun 4 Jan 2015
at 07:45
  • msg #11

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

I'd have to agree with truemane's summation (although I haven't read the article).  The concept of 'talking your way around a threat' rather than just outright relying on the dice and combat rules is something I and most of my friends have done for decades.  When I first started gaming, yes, I and pretty much all of my friends played with a 'it's not one of us so it must be a bad guy so let's kill it' approach to the game...but that was back in junior high.

As we got older, our tastes in gaming became more sophisticated.  We realized that not everything we encountered had to be an enemy, and that there were ways to defeat an enemy that didn't involve taking a sword and whacking it in the head (and that 'defeated' did not have to equal 'dead'.)  And we're still talking 20-25 years ago, which (in my book) is far enough back to be called 'old school.'

Reliance on the dice to solve every situation is something that is worked out between the GM and the players.  If they decide the game is going to be about exploring options and finding non-combat solutions, that's the way the game will work.  If they decide that it's all about the roll of the dice and the 'hand of fate', then that will be the way the game runs.  Some systems are, of course, more inclined to solutions that don't involve the dice...but, ultimately, it's not a question of 'old school' or 'new school'...it's a question of the personal preferences of those participating in the game.
Grungi
member, 4 posts
Sun 4 Jan 2015
at 13:06
  • msg #12

Re: Olschool gaming is good for forum?

In reply to truemane (msg # 10):

So I don't have to feel ashamed, when I ignore this theory and just say to my players:roll, you don't have to chit-chat all about details? :)

facemaker329: I understand your point of view and I can agree, just I have collected impressions about oldschool through pipe-sighted people in the hungarian community.

I have a suspicion, that the Matthew Finch's theory wasn't general in the begining, just they didn't invented the skill-base rpg and that is the reason why they played with player's skill.

In my opinion, that the skill is important part of the game, because the player don't know everything what the character know. And a character knowledge built up with herited abilities (Intelligence, Wisdom, etc.) and learned skills (Alchemy, Swordfight, etc.). So I think using skills not a step back. It is a development.
Sign In