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.”
I wasn’t particularly surprised to see the term used (it actually was used a lot, but, as you note below, with a different meaning—for example, in an adventure or something that featured schools, and some had been around longer than others). I was a little surprised to see it used in a full-page TSR advertisement. In retrospect it does make sense to advertise Greyhawk that way.
DeleteHa, I should have phrased that differently: I think it's funny someone in June 1988 was incensed by an article from January suggesting attribute inflation, but that sounds like it ignored the long history of this.
DeleteBut thanks for searching this stuff up!
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.
Thanks you all for your kind words and additional suggestions. I hope you don't mind my inclusion of them in a revised list at bottom. I thought of a couple more I missed, as well.
Delete@Mark: I can't imagine not having mappers when the party needs to map, but like you I have never seen play with a caller, even the one time as a kid I got to play with the adults. I think most players nowadays would balk at having one player dictating what the others are doing all the time.
@faoladh: I wasn't thinking of Gamma World or Boot Hill, but I agree that feature 5 is one that usually doesn't apply to superhero games. And feature 6 I didn't think generally applied to them either, nor to Call of Cthulhu, for instance. But those games to me also seem like new shoots off the main trunk of "old school".
I am not sure that the psychology systems distinguish old school from new and aren't universal even among old school. Mechanics for encouraging appropriate PC behavior persist; the somewhat recent example that comes to mind is the Complications system in Mutants & Masterminds. The latter does seem to differ from the penalties or loss of PC control in AD&D, Fantasy Wargaming, Bushido, and the like, in that it offers carrots rather than sticks, the awarding of a Hero Point to use during the scenario when a Complication arises.
Thanks to Yochai Gal, Mark A. Hardt, Mark (a different one), and faoladh for features 4, 4A, and 8:
Suggested list of features of "old school":
Definitive
1. 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; this includes mapping when that is relevant.
4A. The paramount importance of tracking time (both by players and the GM) demands being listed as a subitem, due to its effects on management of other resources and its triggering of encounters (random or not).
Commonly found
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.
8. Mechanics for NPC behavior (e.g., reaction rolls, loyalty checks, morale, whether pursuit is pursued, ...).
Not uncommonly found
9. Large parties. For example, S3 calls for 10-15 PCs, B2 for nine.
10. Multiple PCs per player. Tunnels & Trolls and Stormbringer explicitly call for two PCs per player (due to feature 3). The Halls of Tizun Thane calls for 6-12 PCs but 3-6 players.
11. Megadungeons were certainly an important element in early play, but not universal, given their absence from games like Traveller.
12. In games with leveling-up mechanics like D&D and its offshoots, Bushido, etc., campaigns divide into beginning (where the PCs are trying to survive and achieve a modicum of success), mid- (where they have made a name for themselves), and end-games (where they assume key roles, often of leadership, in their world).
Nuts, I thought of another one I would deem essential:
Delete3.5. Balance is irrelevant. Difficulty does not track the capabilities of the PCs but rather the nature of the challenge and players must judge whether they can successfully meet it. (Related, PC creation is a somewhat random process, yielding some characters more capable than others.)
Champions is the earliest game that comes to mind with an entirely deterministic, point-buy system, but as a superhero game it might already be on the border of old school, though it would be unfortunate to exclude it. An example of an early partial divergence from the old school?
So the caller was never supposed to be either the leader or tell the other players what to do, the caller was supposed to be the intermediate between the players and the DM. I suspect this came out of point #9-- early games had much larger groups, so having one person collect the other players' actions and feed them to the DM makes a sort of sense.
DeleteI've never played without a mapper, even in one-on-one games, except for unusual games that involve only already mapped areas. The mapper maps hexes for wilderness travel, buildings for new towns or cities, etc. If a dungeon isn't a part of a session or adventure, the maps tend to be pretty small and vague affairs, and I tend to be extremely advisory (against the rules) on any maps not involving dungeons. I even mapped Eamon computer text adventures and other text games on graph paper back in the day. In fact I would go so far to say, in my personal experience, the mapper role specifically not only appealed to me on a very deep level, but is as much as core conceit for the function and ethos of D&D (to me) as the Beholder, the Magic User or Erol Otus. I have played something called D&D where the DM did not include/need a mapper, but, in well-run sessions like that, it feels to me like a different game (or at least a weak variant on real D&D) and in bad sessions it feels like playing Clue without murder weapons or Monopoly without houses and hotels.
DeleteCaller was less formal for me, and group now is small enough not to need one. However, in the glory days when we regularly had 7+ (largest game I ever played with was all the boys in my 7th grade class at a birthday party (save 4 or 5), a caller was definitely used, pretty much as outlined in Moldvay Cook.
DeleteThe caller was definitely not the leader - that would have been too much work for one kid, and it wasn't like players couldn't talk to the DM occasionally, but with that many people at the tables (the birthday party had players at different card tables, the dining room table, and some sitting on the floor.) but the game could not have functioned with the committee passing their actions through one secretary, so that the DM could keep the thing moving along. In fact, at the birthday, each cluster of kids had an informal caller to tell the actual caller what their group wanted to do. It was a chaotic mess even with the caller, with one of the card tables collectively cheating their dice roles and riling up everyone else, and some players forgetting to melee and so on. Still lots of fun, and it couldn't have happened with callers. Even with a measly 6-7 players (each managing their retainers and such), I don't think I would have wanted to play without a caller.
Even during the latter day DragonLancepocalypse, where everything was supposed firmly on rails, we had a caller. In fact, without a caller, the DM in that campaign would have been able to render our game breaking tricks (changing Raistlin's name to Raisin Bran, Tasselhoff's suicide, the alignment changes) as not occurring. But because we chattered over it and the caller called it (Caller Rule #1: No takebacks, even when the caller screws up.) it became adjudicated in-game reality.
I didn’t have Moldvay, but the PHB states:
Delete“The leader and caller of a party might order one course of action while various players state that their characters do otherwise. Your DM will treat such situations as confused and muddled, being certain to penalize the group accordingly.”
Furthermore, the Call Woodland Beings spell makes specific reference to the caller’s alignment, which gives the caller a definite in-game presence rather than just meta-game. (This is a strange reference, since I would have thought “caller” would refer to the druid casting the spell, but they can’t have an evil alignment.)
As I never played in a group that used a caller, these references gave me a different idea of what it entailed.
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.
Actually, the term old school goes back even farther than the 80’s or even the 70’s.
ReplyDeleteYears ago, I saw a boxing match that was filmed in the 50’s and the announcer for the bought described one of the boxers as having ‘ come up from the old school ways of fighting.’
The term old school is old school. It was used by Charles Dickins and Washington Irving.
DeleteCall of Cthulhu can't have an "old school" variant, because honestly it hasn't changed that much. I've run or played in Sandy Peterson's introductory adventure The Haunting at least once a decade starting in the late 80s. I think they've upgraded it over time and provided more supplements. It is a very interesting snapshot of how Chaosium introduced the game, because its tone is very different (and yet still in harmony with) pretty much every other published or Keeper-generated adventure or campaign that I played afterward. SAN, for one thing, is always a pretty ancillary issue in my experience, and frequently never even comes up in the course of the investigation.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd argue the last time I ran it, the actual play of the scenario felt pretty much the same as the very first time I played in it. The different editions definitely have different trade dress and additional or deleted stuff, but the truth is that the most fiddling (in my experience) is done with the chase rules, and I have used that stuff very very rarely. Procedural chases are just not relevant to how I play CoC (even in Masks, where they are supposed to be).
Was this a response to something I wrote? I am the only other one to mention CoC in the comments to this post. If so, I wasn’t suggesting that CoC changed over the years and decades but that it started off with some assumptions a little different than previous old-school games, hence that it represents a new branch.
DeleteMultiple PCs per player can be (a) a way to create a strong enough party to survive, or (b) an effect of how the game is organised; if Jim is away this week, maybe Dale should roll up an extra character to give the party a fighting chance, or If Jim is here, but his main PC is busy training or doing research etc, then maybe Jim should roll up a second PC to bring to the dungeon that the DM wants to run.
ReplyDelete