Randall at RetroRoleplaying: The Blog posts part of a note from a friend of his:
My rules incorporate all sorts of “modern” things that online “Old School” proponents would have a hissy fit over given their reactions to things like ascending armor class or spell points. For example, players get narrative control to describe the results of their hits (subject to GM veto, of course). I discovered that borrowing this player narrative idea from story games makes our combats more interesting to newer players who really like 3.x and 4.x tactical slugfests without the complex combat rules that annoy my long-time players and make a 5 minute combat in my game take an hour in D&D3 or D&D4.
However, I’ve been told by a couple of online “Old School” pundit-wannabes that this alone means my game and campaign aren’t really “Old School.” The impression I get from online “Old School” proponents is that “Old School” means “I’m playing an early version of D&D and playing it by the book.” By that definition most of the people playing D&D or AD&D in the 1970s and early 1980s; the time period the “Old School” movement apparently wants to bring back were not really playing “Old School” games.
This is something I’ve touched on a few times previously. Whenever new-edition gamers wonder where the rule is for this or for that, old-schoolers gleefully proclaim “That’s the beauty of the old-school games…you can do anything you want!”
That is, of course, until “anything you want” resembles anything in new-edition games. Then, suddenly, grognards crawl out of the woodwork proclaiming that someone’s doing it wrong. I will gladly note, however, that these critics seem to be in the distinct minority.
It was nice to see a couple of old-schoolers that I follow show up in the comments on that post and weigh in with words that I agree with on this subject.
School’s out for summer. Go play.