Now, I don't recall when I first heard the term applied either to Dungeons & Dragons specifically or to roleplaying games more generally, nor can I pinpoint its precise origin. I have a vague recollection that it was one of those things that was spontaneously generated on the pre-social media Internet in the late '90s or early 2000s, but, as I said, I can't be certain. Regardless, I am pretty sure that the term predated the OSR by some years and generally meant something roughly equivalent to "D&D/RPG from the 70's and/or '80s," with some degree of fuzziness around the edges, both temporally and conceptually.
A lot of people assume that the Old School Renaissance was simply a reaction to the excesses of late 3e and I think there's much truth in this. In my own case, unhappiness with the state of Third Edition played a big role, which is ironic, since 3e had brought me back to Dungeons & Dragons in the first place after having largely abandoned the game several years prior. However, I suspect the roots of the OSR go back even farther, into the dying days of TSR, when AD&D Second Edition was itself a bloated and incoherent mess of a game. Some might stretch things even farther back, looking at the rise of "narrative" and "storytelling" games in the '90s as important data points.
I mention all of this simply as background to what will be my first reconsiderations post. Given the wide range of topics that I'll likely be covering as I write this series, I thought it useful to begin with something very basic and indeed foundational. I also thought it an important subject, because, in the eighteen years since I started this blog, my perspective on this matter have become clearer, if not necessarily different from what I have previously written. In the past, I might have been more circumspect in how I defined "old school" and what I understood it to mean, now I feel as if I have a more solid sense of things.
For me, "old school" is, paradoxically, a modern term. It's obviously not a term anyone "back in the day" would have used to describe D&D or any other RPG, for the simple reason that "old school" is a comparative term, one that depends on time having passed and there being multiple iterations of a game to compare to one another. "Old school" is, therefore, a retrospective category, one invented after the fact to identify certain common features, assumptions, and practices associated with the hobby's earlier years. Like all such categories, it is necessarily imperfect. The people who created and played these games in the 1970s and '80s did not think of themselves as participating in an "old school" style of play; they were simply playing roleplaying games as they understood them.
This is one reason why I have always thought the "R" in OSR stood for "renaissance." A renaissance is not a simple return to the past. It's an attempt to recover something from the past that is believed to possess enduring value, even though the very act of recovery inevitably reshapes it. The artists and scholars of the Renaissance did not recreate the art and ideals of Classical Antiquity they so admired. Neither did the Protestant Reformers did not restore the primitive Christianity they felt had become obscured under centuries of accretions. Both were instances of later generations looking backward for inspiration while simultaneously creating something new, whether they intended to do so or not.
That's also true of the OSR. Whatever else it may have been, the Old School Renaissance was never merely an exercise in preservation. Certainly, there were those whose chief concern was keeping older games alive and accessible. Without their efforts, many important texts and traditions might well have disappeared. Yet, from its earliest days, the OSR was also a creative movement. The proliferation of retro-clones, house rules, and entirely new games inspired by older ones quite quickly made that abundantly clear. Even when its devotees claimed to be "returning" to the roots of the hobby, they were doing so from a historical vantage point that could not help but influence – and, occasionally, distort – their understanding of those roots.
That's why I would argue that the category of "old school" only emerged because the hobby had changed. Certain features of earlier roleplaying games and styles of play came to be seen as distinctive precisely because they were no longer taken for granted. I think this helps explain why debates over the meaning of "old school" were (and remain) so contentious. The term refers neither to a specific type of rules nor to a particular historical period. Rather, it points toward a collection of loosely related ideas, assumptions, and practices drawn from the hobby's formative decades. Different people naturally emphasize different elements of that inheritance. Some focus on rules, while others focus on adventure design, campaign structure, referee authority, player agency, or any number of other factors. None of these perspectives is wholly wrong, because "old school" is itself a modern effort to make sense of a diverse and often contradictory past.
That's why nowadays, when I speak of "old school," I do not mean a museum piece or a slavish recreation of how roleplaying games were played in 1977, 1982, or any other year. Neither do I mean a particular game, edition, or collection of mechanics. Rather, I mean a tradition of play, one that took shape during the hobby's formative decades and whose characteristic assumptions can still be discerned beneath the considerable diversity of the games now associated with it.
Those assumptions are precisely what I mean by "old school." They have less to do with descending armor class, race-as-class, or any other rules idiosyncrasy than with a particular understanding of the relationship between players, referees, characters, and settings. They concern what roleplaying games are for, how they are meant to be played, and what kinds of experiences they are best suited to provide. The details will necessarily vary from game to game and table to table, but I think there is nevertheless a coherent thread running through them. It is that thread, rather than any single rules system or historical period, that I now understand to have been the true subject of the Old School Renaissance (and, by extension, this blog).


Thought I’d search the Dragon Archive. If the macOS search tool is to be believed, the first use of “old school” was in the letters column (“Forum”) of the June 1988 issue. David Poythress, of Kansas City, Missouri, wrote in to complain about an article five issues earlier “which provides information for ‘hopping up’ demihuman ability scores”: “Well, perhaps I am a player/DM of the old school, outmoded by hordes of gung-ho campaigners. I feel that the curve of progression will soon have all player characters and most NPCs wandering around with incredibly high scores and commensurately incredible abilities, even at 1st level. Is this practice to continue unchecked?”
ReplyDeleteThe next use macOS could find was in the July 1988 issue, which saw two uses. TSR advertised Greyhawk Adventures for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as “All new art & adventures—same old school monster thumping.”
Ray Winninger’s review of The Complete Masks of Nyarlathotep describes Mask’s hand-holding style as old-school, which is pretty much the opposite meaning, though this may have to do with CoC. “…such a style takes a lot of the burden off less experienced Keepers, allowing them to concentrate on unfolding the complex plot. Equally indicative of the campaign’s ‘old school’ origins are the sheer number of fully-detailed asides, red herrings and alternate paths incorporated into the overall structure.”
Later, reviewing “Realm of Shadows” he says that “RoS also implements Masks’ ‘old school’ philosophy of presenting extremely detailed advice on how to handle most situations, in place of the more general hints and suggestions that one tends to find in more modern products.”
Very interesting! Thanks for digging up this information.
DeleteWhoops. That second cite should be July 1998 not 1988.
DeleteI think it’s funny that it took someone until 1988 to complain about this, given the DMG in 1979 already listing four ways to generate stats well above 3d6-in-order. And other games had similar issues. Look at “Monsters! Monsters!” from 1976 and the sample 1st-level human opponents produced by Jim “Bear” Peters and it’s clear these were not produced by 3d6-in-order, as T&T specifies.
DeleteIt’s possible that they did complain about it, but did not use the term “old-school” to their opinion about it.
DeleteThe corrected date Jerry Stratton provides lends a little evidence to James' suspicion that "old school gaming" was referenced in the 90s and indeed addressed suspicions that AD&D had experienced 2nd edition drift.
DeleteThanks for digging this up Jerry!
"The next use macOS could find was in the July 1988 *1998* issue, which saw two uses. TSR advertised Greyhawk Adventures for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as “All new art & adventures—same old school monster thumping.”
To me the epitome of Old School play mostly involves dungeons, but whether there or in the wilderness, city, or other planes, the adventure must test the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the players, not merely the stats and abilities of the the characters.
ReplyDeleteHear hear.
DeleteAs a test of what I have learned from your blog and elsewhere, Old School brings to mind the following traits:
ReplyDelete1. Player decisions matter. This is true for any good game but emphasizes that RPGs originated as games, not stories.
2. Players have complete agency (except in rare cases of mind control).
3. Death is a reality the PCs face.
4. Resource (and hireling/henchman) management is crucial.
5. The PCs rarely start off as important people in their world, and may not even end up that way. In fact, they are often short of money, leading to…
6. The PC motivations are often picaresque, rather than setting out on some epic quest to save the world.
7. Random tables assist the GM in creating encounters, places, etc. That stuff just happens also can add an air of reality.
Some of the points above also don’t apply to CoC or superhero games; are those Old School?
Megadungeons were certainly an important element in early play, but I don’t think they're essential, given their absence from games like Traveller. The beginning, mid, and end-game division in D&D also seems to only apply to games with similar leveling-up mechanics.
I’d be curious what you would add and subtract.
This is great. Personally I would add reaction rolls to the list.
DeleteA great list! To the resources mentioned, I'd say time is the most important. The passage of time means wandering monster checks, consumption of food, water, light, spells, etc. That constant pressure is what gives everything tension and conflict.
DeleteDon't forget having a "caller" and a "mapper." (j/k) It's still interesting to see which ideas, even as late as Moldvay Basic, never really got adopted, at least in the many gaming groups I've been in.
DeleteThat's a really good formulation, I think, though I aso think that only features 1 through 4 are definitive. Features 5 through 7 are only common among games I'd consider "old school", while I can think of games like Superhero 2044 or even Gamma World and Boot Hill that don't make feature 5 an essential feature, for example, though of course it's more common for a character even in those games to begin as a "zero" than a "hero".
DeleteGiven a tier of "common but not definitive" features, I agree with Yochai Gal that there are a few other approaches, notably reactions and related mechanics like morale and loyalty that are commonly found in "old school" games, even if they aren't necessarily there. There are probably a few others, too. Maybe some sort of chase mechanic is commonly found, like AD&D's codification of ways to throw off pursuit? I suppose that's a variation of reaction rolls, though.
Not to go off on a tangent from that, but wouldn't the psychology systems from games like Pendragon or Fantasy Wargaming be best understood as refinements of reaction roll systems with provisions to influence, without determining, PC behavior?
In any case, I think you have a solid framework here to think about the specific features that distinguish play that can be considered "old school" in character as differentiated from later play styles.
Not only would rpg players not refer to themselves as "old school" in 1980 for the reasons you gave, no one would have used the phrase much at all that year! 1980 was the lowest point since 1834 for the frequency of use of the very phrase "old school", according to Google ngram.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, 1983 was the only time in the history of Dungeons and Dragons that the phrase "Dungeons and Dragons" appeared more frequently than the phrase "Old School!" "Old School as a phrase was very much out of favor during that decade, and D&D's decade of currency and relevance was indeed the 1980s.
"Old School"* as a phrase rebounded in general use starting in 1996 and peaked (matching 1944 levels) in 2007.
At worst, this is a direct coincidence supporting your thesis. I suspect with more digging, some level of statistically significant correlation will be found.
Here's the ugly gURLb of the ngram search, as I did not want to hotlink to a temp search:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22Old+School%22%2C+%22Dungeons+and+Dragons%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3
*Note that "old school" can have multiple meanings, which does explain quite a bit of the massive use of the phrase in the 19th century, as both "my old school" (in reference to one's alma mater) and "old school vs. new school" (more similar to our use of it today) were in heavy use. Still, by the 20th century, the current primary definition had become the relevant one.