I do, however, find myself with more than a few bones to pick with the PDF’s contents, the largest of which is the claim that early D&D emphasized “player skill”. While there is indeed skill involved in that style of play, that skill is all about learning the DM’s personal tells, biases, and expectations; and about learning the tropes that module writers use over and over. The rules of an RPG exist to spell out at which points a GM is expected to relinquish control, either to chance or to his players, and the more tightly a GM keeps hold of his perogative to decide every outcome of every action, the less the game involves any sort of skill from the players beyond knowing how to manipulate him. “More rules” does not equal “better game”, but “more rules” does have a very strong correlation to “greater influence from player skill”.

Don’t get me wrong. I much prefer “rules light” games for most purposes, but all this “old-school D&D” nostalgia misses the point that no incarnation of D&D was ever truly a rules-light game, especially once you got past the “garage publishing” era and into the first hardback books. The older versions were just more arbitrary and disorganized, designed by committee and impossible to reconcile one facet with another. In short they were primtive, but not actually simple, and hardly in a position of virtue to claim superiority over any of their descendants. They did what they did because, at the time, they were the only game in town.

I do still play some D&D when that’s what’s being offered, but if you’re going to give me a choice, give me _real_ simplicity, please, and give me elegance as well. Give me FUDGE or FATE or West End’s “d6 system” or my home-brew “2d10 system”. And give me fast-moving and fun. I used to have a blast meticulously scouring every inch of the dungeon for traps and secret doors — back when I was ten, with all sorts of lazy Saturdays and evenings to fill up with my daydreaming. Now I’ve got a career, a wife, two young kids, a home of my own, a monster commute, and barely a moment to think most days. Free time comes at a premium, and just like the recent re-boot of Star Trek, I need my RPGs to find their inner Star Wars.

When presented with two polar opposites, I tend to see if there is any middle ground. For instance, there is room for both die rolls and roleplay in the skill section. If you RP something out, the GM can take your skill modifiers into account as he determines the outcome. Or if you RP something a bit, and then roll the dice, the GM can assign modifiers based on your actions.

The other things I remember (and not too fondly) about Ye Olde Schoole Game are the endless arguments and discussions of “how things work” and how that should affect the game. Given that a fantasy world doesn’t have to follow natural laws, and gamers may have different ideas about how things work (see any given 1980s discussion on ninjas), this resulted in many a “because it’s magic” or “because I said so”.

My personal opinion is that OD&D was great at the time; it was all we had. The vague and subjective rules, and the reaction to them, pushed gaming towards the opposite pole: where the rules dictate everything, sometimes even trumping any sense of reality or verisimilitude. (Yeah, I had to go and use “the V word”.) Now, we’ve seen the madness that lies that way (four hour combats, anyone?), and the pendulum is swinging the other way. There are a lot of games available now that straddle the difference. Even 4E is less crunchy than 3.5, in many ways, and the alternatives like Fudge, Savage Worlds, etc. are much more streamlined than 3.5, but are still more detailed than OD&D.

I would have thought the appeal of this style was that you didn’t have a ream of rules you needed to consult each time someone wanted to try something new. Obviously trying to be cosistant is better than not, but going so far as to have notes on everything is little better than having codified rules in my opinion. As long as you are fair overall and your players are accepting of the occasional variation in rules, I think it far better to have no notes and run on the fly each time a situation comes up (unless it gets used every other game or so)

If you’re going to make adjustments on the fly, introduce unique elements beyond the rules, and such, it’s very important to make sure everyone understands why and how you’ll make your decisions. If talking about the game is derided as “metagaming” or viewed as against the rules, you’ve lost a key you need to stitch together a coherent game with friends. In many ways, the state of gaming discussions today may be what makes 0e play more widely possible.

People like to hide behind rules because it gives them a chance to be on a level playing field. People hate nothing more than to feel that there is favoritism at the table.

I do like the “old school” idea that characters are not entitled to face things they can defeat. I love to toss my characters against challenges outside of their abilities and watch them scatter and scrounge for a way to win. But I have players who complain about that. I have one player who specifically said that one of the thing he hates about most games is that there is not specific “challenge rating” system, so he never knows exactly how hard an encounter is going to be. I always tell him that that looseness is to give him room to improvise. Encounter’s too hard? The players need to think fast and come up with something to save their bacon. Encounter’s too easy? Then it leaves the players feeling like big damn heroes.