Gelatinous Icosahedron

 We use the word "game" in distinct and mutually exclusive ways, and then get confused when we try to equivocate between the two. There are games in the sense of free-form make-believe, such as when children play Cops and Robbers or House, or adults engage in theatrical or comedic improvisation. Then there are games of objective rules, such as chess, checkers, Monopoly, and card games.  D&D, as originally created and played, is a game of objectivity. It has slowly evolved away from those roots. Many of the old forms have been intentionally preserved, but they are vestigial, and as such, useless and pointless to the way the game is played in its modern incarnations.  D&D is known for its mathematical rules -- perhaps digital is even nearer the mark. Target numbers and modifiers are precisely defined, and they're intended to be used that way. There are no "fudge factors" and indeed, that would defeat the entire purpose of the digital precision. If these n...

 There's a lot more to the power curve of old school D&D than just being able to take on bigger and tougher monsters as the party levels up. Newish players and DMs might be forgiven for thinking that way, but they'd still be wrong. In this post, I'm going to look at the different dynamics that emerge over the course of an old school-style campaign, and then compare that to what happens with a lot of the "innovations" of new school play. First up, though, we're kickin' it old school! Low-level play is a game of stark contrasts and sudden death. Randomness can turn victory to defeat, or vice-versa, in the blink of an eye, and the players' primary challenge is to minimize its effects as much as possible through careful and clever play.  New player characters in old school D&D are fragile. Most have a fair chance of being slain by a single hit from a 1d6 attack. Even if you use the popular house rule of allowing new 1st-level PCs maximum hit point...

 Another installment in My Old School Manifesto. There seems to be a lot of disagreement among tabletop gamers about the appropriateness of "fudging" dice rolls. I'm pleased to observe, though, that the practice is much more frowned-upon by folks identifying as OSR or old school, and I agree very much with the principle of NEVER fudging dice rolls. During actual play*, don't roll -- don't even TOUCH the dice -- unless you mean to abide by the result. *It is absolutely acceptable to roll dice during game prep activities, such as creating a dungeon, for the purpose of inspiration or a sort of writing prompt, and then to disregard or modify the results. We're talking actual play here. By not rolling the dice unless you mean it, you preserve their objectivity. Players know you're not going to bail them out or screw them over because of any biases or preconceptions about what "should" happen. If you believe strongly that a particular outcome should oc...

 The second topic I want to explore in my Old School Manifesto series is the DM's role in creating "stories" in the game.  The idea of an overarching narrative to an adventure or an entire campaign has been around a long time, as evidenced by quite a few classic-era modules. I'm no TSR historian, but it seems to me it really started creeping in (at least in basic D&D) after the first few published modules in the B and X series, and took hold hard with the C and M series. At some point, modules became freighted with scripted encounters proceeding in linear fashion to an expected conclusion. To be fair, some of these modules did, if I recall correctly, provide a few possible paths to reach the ending, and allowed for the possibility that the PCs would fail, but they were still expected to proceed more or less within a set of predetermined parameters toward a preordained climactic scene.  So, I suppose a case could be made that plotted adventures are a part of, or at...

 This post is the first in a series loosely conceived as My Old School Manifesto, where I look at ideas and principles which, to me, are important to the concept of "old school" gaming. "Rulings not rules" is one of the most oft-repeated mantras of the OSR and old school gaming generally, but in my estimation, it misses the mark. Taken literally, it implies no rules are necessary at all; that a DM has only to make rulings, and I highly doubt anyone takes it that far. In spirit it means that you don't need codified rules for every situation and trying to attain that standard is a quixotic endeavor at best. It would perhaps be more accurate, though less catchy, to encapsulate the intended spirit in the phrase "Rulings informed by rules" or "Rules sufficient to provide benchmarks for rulings." What I want in an old school or old school-esque game is a body of broadly applicable rules for the types of situations most commonly faced in the game. T...