Graphical Discussion
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
( Read more... )
Mind you, I've recently read through the whole archive of Maliszewski's blog, and bought all the issues of Fight On!. Obviously, there are a lot of things I love about Old School. I think they are reacting to many of the same trends in RPGs that the Forge/Indie crowd were, but from a different perspective. I.e., let's go back to the beginning and see what we can learn. There's merit to this, and this it's worth noting that indie stalwarts like Vincent Baker and Clinton Nixon are completely in love with Old School.
That said, the diagram on Mishler's blog highlighted some of my hesitations with Old School, particularly the use of the term "roll-playing." I fear that, in going backwards, the Old School may be doomed to make all the same mistakes. E.g., they say "Rulings, not rules," and I hear "System doesn't matter." In addition, I totally agree that there are games that have already fixed a lot of the problems they've indentified. But since said games weren't written by Gygax or St. Andre, the Old Schoolers aren't interested. I sincerely hope that we will eventually see more than just endless Moldvay and Holmes retreads from the Old School. I think they're on to something; I just hope they don't get lost along the way.
Reply
Leave a comment