Graphical Discussion

[rob_donoghue]

Graphics are a fantastic way to make arguments. Not only do they express information in an interesting, digestible way, they are also hard to argue with because you end up engaging the graphic rather than the underlying argument. This becomes doubly problematic when the graphic is particularly clever, and the point of disagreement is strongly open

Comments

[reverancepavane]

Actually I think a large part of the Old School movement is abandoning systems rather than trying to improve them. In other words it is a retreat from complexity, although this does increase the weight of responsibility onto the gamemaster (and players).
Most of the fans of the idea, of which I count myself as one, are essentially trying to recapture the original feel of uncomplicated systems with the rules being suggestions rather than established lore. The popularity and interest in the "resurgance" is in seeing how people interpreted and created vastly different games out of the same three little books (or in James case, the Holmes editions).
YMWV.
Although in your later diagram I find it curious that you place Amber where you do.

[rob_donoghue]

I've heard that argument before, but I've yet to see it held up in practice. I am sympathetic to the desire for simpler systems, but I can pretty casually think of plenty of workable systems that are simpler still - things like RISUS or Over the Edge jump right to mind - or even systems that are almost entirely interpretive, like Amber. Curiously, this is where I see a lot of the blind spots - were I to judge solely by internet discussions, one might think that every game ever is more complicated than old D&D

Another answer maybe?

[reverancepavane]

The thought that comes to my mind on this is to start working on tools to help GM's handle their games better, rather than trying to create new game systems. That's my orientation at any rate, and our group has been working towards that for some time now and it seems to be bearing fruit. You can look up LRGPSW if you want and make of it what you will. Our goal is to improve our skills as GMs (of whatever style game, be it old school or otherwise).

[samldanach]

Another terminology question: What is meant in the original graph by "pick-a-path." I'm just not understanding what play-style that refers to, and none of my possible thoughts about opposites of "high adventure" seem to fit that term.

[drivingblind]

Choose your own adventure, perhaps.

[rob_donoghue]

Yeah, that's how I read it.

[samldanach]

Does that imply that High Adventure, then, is necessarily tightly plotted? Or at least narrowly channeled, so that there are only a few genuine stories to tell?

I think a big part of the issue comes down to terminology, in a very similar method to Rob's original point of how graphics can actually serve to muddy the underlying argument.

[raconteurx]

It's funny that you feel the Old School movement suffers from myopia, I've long felt the same about the Story Games movement. Any movement that promotes one style of play as intrinsically "better" than another is by its very nature short-sighted, in my not-so-humble opinion.

James Maliszewski has emerged as the mouthpiece of the Old Schoolers, just as Ron Edwards did years ago for the Story Gamers. In my experience, those who lead movements have am ego stake in their success. If the movement flourishes, they were "right" and detractors can be dismissed as clueless or reactionary.

A similar myopia arises between adherents of particular game systems; just look at the long GURPS vs. Hero System arguments, or the RuneQuest vs. HeroQuest schism which occurred within the Glorantha community. Let's face it, many people promote their personal tastes as if those tastes are the standard by which others' tastes must abide. Parochialism is the rule, not the exception.

[rob_donoghue]

I would only disagree to say that the forgie/indie/storygame vision problem is slightly different, more akin to color blindness. The FIS approach was always willing to look at other games, if only to pass judgment on their flaws.

Obviously, at the worst extreme of both approaches, neither group really covers themselves with glory, but I find it interesting to see how a group's sense of supremacy evolves from group to group.

[raconteurx]

I find the Old Schoolers and Story Gamers equally eager to pass judgment on the flaws they perceive in games outside their oeuvre whilst turning a blind eye to those within it.

A good example from the Story Games side is the repudiation of so-called "fantasy heartbreakers" even as games such as Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel are held up as examples of originality.

What makes these judgments so laughable, from either side, is that they all eventually fall apart. It's building on false dichotomies, as others stated earlier. A fatal flaw...

I find that elitists are all pretty much cut from the same cloth, and simply vary in the cogence of their arguments and the fluency with which they present them. They prefer punditry to dialogue.

[buzzmo]

Except that BW and TRoS are original, and are not heartbreakers.

Let's not paint whole swaths of people as one thing or another.

[buzzmo]

Great post, Rob. You've crystallized a lot of my own feelings about Old School

Thanks

[anonymous]

Hi Rob