D&D General Younger Players Telling Us how Old School Gamers Played

[Sacrosanct]

Ugh.

That's sums up what I think about this. Videos like this: There are...a lot of false assumptions here.

First is that we were unaware of this rule that time in the game world matches real world time. We were aware. Heck, because there was no internet or cable TV to occupy our time, we spent more time reading and rereading books cover to cover. We all knew the rules. But we also all knew how many of them conflicted each other and we ignored what we didn't want to play with.

Second, an assumption that you either ignored real life time (like modern game) or that you followed real life time no matter what. No. While most everyone I played with back then ran a living world where time did move on outside of the game, it didn't follow real life time. That's a clear distinction.

The third assumption was that all players played in a shared world. No. The DM's game was their world, but that didn't extend from DM to DM. Good lord, that would be impossible to even try to manage.

I gotta tell ya, it's starting to get old constantly hearing from people who weren't even born yet telling us all how old school gaming was back in the day. How about just asking us? We're not all dead yet. The premise of this argument is false. What lent to old school gaming was not that we followed the passage of real life time between sessions into the game itself, but that the game was a living world where time in that world kept going regardless of what the players were doing, but the passage of that time was up the DM for what made the most sense for the adventure and not a real world calendar.

*Yes, I know there might have been some people who played like this, but I've never met one in real life and I'm confident they were the exception rather than the rule.

 

[darjr]

Oh, yea, started watching that and haven’t gotten through it.

Frankly everyone should read “The Elusive Shift”

At least it’d let everyone know how fractured the play styles were even back then.

Lots of people thought TSR was a bit bonkers. And TSR thought lots of the players were too.

Reality was probably everyone was.

 

[Ringtail]

I gotta tell ya, it's starting to get old constantly hearing from people who weren't even born yet telling us all how old school gaming was back in the day. How about just asking us? We're not all dead yet.

I mean I would love to hear about it. I'm 26 I play 5e and Pathfinder 2e of course but I'm really into the OSR scene and the different philosophies of play back then. I'm read blogs and seen videos about older players experiences but that content is few and far between.

Personally I find D&D-tube to be insufferable, even for modern games. Its all either click-baity video-game style lists or memes and sketch comedy. Or Actual Plays, but that's a different beast entirely.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ugh.

That's sums up what I think about this. Videos like this: There are...a lot of false assumptions here.

First is that we were unaware of this rule that time in the game world matches real world time. We were aware. Heck, because there was no internet or cable TV to occupy our time, we spent more time reading and rereading books cover to cover. We all knew the rules. But we also all knew how many of them conflicted each other and we ignored what we didn't want to play with.

Second, an assumption that you either ignored real life time (like modern game) or that you followed real life time no matter what. No. While most everyone I played with back then ran a living world where time did move on outside of the game, it didn't follow real life time. That's a clear distinction.

The third assumption was that all players played in a shared world. No. The DM's game was their world, but that didn't extend from DM to DM. Good lord, that would be impossible to even try to manage.

I gotta tell ya, it's starting to get old constantly hearing from people who weren't even born yet telling us all how old school gaming was back in the day. How about just asking us? We're not all dead yet. The premise of this argument is false. What lent to old school gaming was not that we followed the passage of real life time between sessions into the game itself, but that the game was a living world where time in that world kept going regardless of what the players were doing, but the passage of that time was up the DM for what made the most sense for the adventure and not a real world calendar.

*Yes, I know there might have been some people who played like this, but I've never met one in real life and I'm confident they were the exception rather than the rule.

The place where I've found a rule like this useful is when running a single world with multiple groups of players. You can also run them as parallel universes but in terms of tracking information, if you do something approaching real world time, it gets around a lot of issues that can come up (not every issue though).

In terms of rules like this and the culture of play in general. I came into gaming in 86, so I missed the very early period. But even then my experience was you had pockets of gaming culture that were all very different (both due to regional differences, differences of when people started gaming, and differences from individual gaming group to gaming group. And it is interesting how we all had the same books, but often ran them very different (like you say ignoring rules that you felt made no sense, didn't work, or just weren't to your taste). And there was no internet to go to really (at least nothing like we have today) and so there wasn't any kind of wider consensus about anything. You could be in one group and think everyone played like you, then game with another group from the same school you went to, or just one town over, and discover they did things radically differently from you.

One thing I do remember, at least here, is it was often common to honor a character from campaign to campaign. Not every GM was down with this. But I do recall people bringing characters from one group to another and leveling that character as they went from group to group.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Don't blame the younger people; blame the old dudes screaming at the younger people about how they're not doing it right and then telling them how their table did things as if that was the One True Way.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ugh.

That's sums up what I think about this. Videos like this: There are...a lot of false assumptions here.

yeah I saw this and thought it odd but i think YOU missunderstood too.

First is that we were unaware of this rule that time in the game world matches real world time. We were aware. Heck, because there was no internet or cable TV to occupy our time, we spent more time reading and rereading books cover to cover. We all knew the rules. But we also all knew how many of them conflicted each other and we ignored what we didn't want to play with.

I don't know about this I wasn't around in 1e but I have and had friends that were and no one ever mentioned it.

Second, an assumption that you either ignored real life time (like modern game) or that you followed real life time no matter what. No. While most everyone I played with back then ran a living world where time did move on outside of the game, it didn't follow real life time. That's a clear distinction.

I mean you either did it 1:1 or house ruled it... those are the two options... I have qustions for you since you did this but I will save for end...

The third assumption was that all players played in a shared world. No. The DM's game was their world, but that didn't extend from DM to DM. Good lord, that would be impossible to even try to manage.

this is what i think you took wrong... I don't think he meant people all over the world I think he meant gary and his friends (and by extension any group of friends)

I gotta tell ya, it's starting to get old constantly hearing from people who weren't even born yet telling us all how old school gaming was back in the day. How about just asking us?

so can you give an example? some idea of time passing. I started in 2e and found that OFTEN we had 6 month or less 0 to hero games and people were already jokeing about it at cons.

my experence was we would end most games at a point and pick up either right at (or close to) that point or 1 bed rest later... there were times we did 'time jumps' but they were rare... if 1e was different I would LOVE to hear about it

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean I would love to hear about it. I'm 26 I play 5e and Pathfinder 2e of course but I'm really into the OSR scene and the different philosophies of play back then. I'm read blogs and seen videos about older players experiences but that content is few and far between.

Personally I find D&D-tube to be insufferable, even for modern games. Its all either click-baity video-game style lists or memes and sketch comedy. Or Actual Plays, but that's a different beast entirely.

As darjr mentioned, read the Elusive Shift. That's a good starting point. I have a number of prior posts on the book, but none are as good as just reading it for yourself.

I think what is most helpful is understanding the massive diversity of playstyles in the early 70s and 80s. Like all of history, looking back we tend to view things as a monoculture because it's easier to describe (like saying that "everyone was a hippy" in the late 60s, it's facile and obviously wrong).

Arguably, it was more diverse than today, in terms of D&D, for a few reasons-

1. Lack of communication. Sure, there was Dragon Magazine. Conventions. But for the most part, areas were geographically isolated and people learned to play differently.

2. Lack of primacy of rules. There was no idea of RAW; far from it. The rules were not only considered just a starting point ... you couldn't play with "just the rules." It was inculcated early on that you would modify, add, or discard rules as needed.


.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

One thing I do remember, at least here, is it was often common to honor a character from campaign to campaign. Not every GM was down with this. But I do recall people bringing characters from one group to another and leveling that character as they went from group to group.

we had people try this, and it worked okay most times in 2e, but by 3e we would just tell people "recreate that character concept but no you can't bring them in as is" I don't even remember why we allowed people to do it in 2e.

Spoiler: funny story

I played in 2 1 on 1 games (well 1 was always 1 on 1 and 1 started with 3 players and we lost 1 then the other and it turned into 1 on 1) and then a year or so after the second one found a game I could bring the PC into and tried but failed to get into the group in game... but this group was 9 players (before me I would have been 10) some had 2 characters, and of those 9, 3 of them were characters from previous games BUT 1 of those we found out latter was a liek they just made an ultra powerful character and lied claiming they were playing them before...

 

[darjr]

As darjr mentioned, read the Elusive Shift. That's a good starting point. I have a number of prior posts on the book, but none are as good as just reading it for yourself.

I think what is most helpful is understanding the massive diversity of playstyles in the early 70s and 80s. Like all of history, looking back we tend to view things as a monoculture because it's easier to describe (like saying that "everyone was a hippy" in the late 60s, it's facile and obviously wrong).

Arguably, it was more diverse than today, in terms of D&D, for a few reasons-

1. Lack of communication. Sure, there was Dragon Magazine. Conventions. But for the most part, areas were geographically isolated and people learned to play differently.

2. Lack of primacy of rules. There was no idea of RAW; far from it. The rules were not only considered just a starting point ... you couldn't play with "just the rules." It was inculcated early on that you would modify, add, or discard rules as needed.


.

Yup, that last part.

While I’ve since been convinced that the Original set IS a complete game it sure doesn’t feel that way upon reading it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Don't blame the younger people; blame the old dudes screaming at the younger people about how they're not doing it right and then telling them how their table did things as if that was the One True Way.

People should just not be blaming folks according to what group they happen to belong to in general. Younger gamers can't help being younger, older gamers can't help being older. As long as the hobby has been around there have been different styles and tensions between styles (as well as tensions between older and younger approaches). There have also always been people from both groups who are obnoxious about it. But most people aren't obnoxious and there is no reason to assume that about either group.