Death & Dying

Old School PC Mortality
Perhaps nothing illustrates the separation of old school play from new school better than their respective attitudes about player character death. Life seemed cheap in the old days and a typical session (not campaign) might see the death of one or more characters, not to mention the more expendable henchmen and hirelings. Old school rules can handle dozens of combatants and adventuring parties were often dungeon expeditions of perhaps a dozen or more individuals. Players often controlled more than one character and characters often had a henchman or hireling also controlled by the player. In contrast, new school games involve lengthy character generation procedures and character sheets with a lot of data, so it is uncommon for a player to control more than one PC during a session. Often a player will have only a single character in a campaign. Investment in that single character makes character death something to not take lightly.
My special snowflake: Playing in a Pathfinder campaign that generally meets twice a month, my PC is an Elven Fighter/Wizard. I built this character (point buy, not random rolls) along old school lines aiming for the White Box elf class limits of 8th level Magic User, 4th level Fighting Man. At level 6/3 he has accumulated a number of magic items, feats and skills which make the character a one-elf wrecking machine. As a player I have a number of decisions to make for this single character each combat round. I have been playing this one character for a couple years now and as my sole "playing piece" in the campaign have some investment in keeping him alive. The other players in the campaign are in a similar situation having a single character which is fairly well advanced in experience and accumulated magic.
The stable: in my early days of White Box and The Fantasy Trip play I recall we all kept a "stable" of several PCs, often at various levels of experience. (Character sheets were often 3"x 5" index cards.) When getting together to play a game, we assembled a party of adventurers from our stable of characters, then attempted to hire any additional muscle we thought might be needed. We often ran more than one PC each. The White Box character sheet is a simple affair and with initiative by side even an involved combat with several PCs, henchmen and hirelings is quite within the capabilities of an experienced player. We had our favorite characters and tried to mitigate risks to those PCs, but we went into the session knowing "someone's PC was likely to die".
There are a lot of factors that have contributed to the changes which have occurred in our hobby over the four decades I have been playing adventure games and it is not my goal here to describe them all, nor even to postulate what has brought about a popular change in attitude regarding character death. The point here is that PC death can add an element of fun to the game by increasing the risk. Loss of a favored PC doesn't have to take one out of the game (or campaign) and the threat of loss adds to the suspense and verisimilitude. When it happens, make it an event during the game. Other PCs may want to recover the body, say a few words (in character) about the lost companion and perhaps revenge his/her death. Tragic death is a part of many good stories, there is no reason to avoid it like the plague in our gaming if the game is designed to handle it well.

Magic in Middle Earth

Tolkien Seen Through a White Box Lens
The act of including elves, dwarves and hobbits as player character races in White Box pretty well guarantees gamers will use the rules to play in settings inspired by Middle Earth. However, as Gary Gygax and others at TSR repeatedly point out, their game is not designed to play Middle Earth. White Box draws from a number of sources for inspiration and is really its own thing. The astute observer will notice a monster here and there drawn from a specific source, or a character class inspired by certain literary characters, but the system aims at supporting play using many different styles rather than imitating just one source such as Prof. Tolkien's Middle Earth. Most obviously the magic using classes of Cleric and Magic User seem out of place in any version of Middle Earth.
The game system is malleable and this isn't to say that with the appropriate "fixes" and modifications an inspired referee cannot use the basic system to run a game or campaign set in some version of Middle Earth. I have done just so myself several times with varying degrees of success. It does take some work. Any version of Middle Earth that a referee may run using any rules is subject to that referee's interpretation of the source material (your Middle Earth will vary). Some may wish to follow canon more closely than others and some will emphasize one aspect over another. Frequently gamers tone down the use of magic by players or abandon it altogether thereby portraying Middle Earth as a very Low-Magic setting. This is not my personal preference, however, as I see Middle earth as a very magical place.
In some ways the popularity of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings has done Middle Earth a disservice. Familiarity removes some of the wonder, the magic if you will. The made-for-TV cartoons, while delightful in many ways, rather "pulls the fangs" of Prof. Tolkien's creation by focusing on the cuteness of hobbits. There are many horrors present in Middle Earth (things that will eat you body and soul) and I tend to see it as a "grim and perilous" place, but perhaps that is my personal preference. Whether one focuses on the shire, pipe weed, birthday parties and the like or on darker aspects such as undead wraiths, cannibalistic orcs and corruption is to some degree a matter of perspective. Both are present along with much more.
The magic of Middle Earth takes on many forms. The immortal lands themselves and the beings that inhabit those realms, the dark and powerful forces, those who weave subtle magics for good or ill and the casters of spells themselves are all evidence of the prevalence of magic. The Istari, or wizards like Gandalf, are Maiar, immortal spirits sent to watch over and protect the mortal races. Other spirits are aligned with the Shadow such as Shelob the spider and Balrog. The ring witches are practitioners of dark magic who follow the Shadow. The first-born elves sing their magical song and those who have seen the light of the west are filled with it and can shine forth as magic. The dwarves can weave magic and along with elves produced many of the magical items that exist in Middle Earth. Even men have some magic power, especially Numenoreans - though it is often used for evil. The Steward, Denethor, seems to have some ability to see the future and Aragorn may have some skill in magical healing. Wormtongue may have learned some enchantment at the feet of his master, Saruman. In most cases the use of magic in Middle Earth is subtle by White Box standards which bases its magic system more on the dramatic effects of the Dying Earth (Jack Vance) sources.
White Box uses a modular mix of various mechanics for its individual parts and I personally favor a major redesign of the White Box magic system for use with Middle Earth, but a fairly simple modification can be a quick work-around. By treating divine magic as the "white magic" of elves and wizards, perhaps with a few custom spells added into the mix, and Magic User spells as "black magic" learned at the feet of the Dark One, a reasonable version of Middle Earth can be played. I feel a corruption mechanic is in order when playing Middle Earth to account for the weight of the Shadow which falls upon those who either defy the darkness or embrace it. The key is to not try and reproduce the stories told in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Develop your own Middle Earth tales.

Cross Plains Barbarian

R.E. Howard and White Box
I have been giving some thought to my own Appendix N, in other words, influences on my personal preferred style of gaming and on my own homebrew world. The work of Robert E. Howard must stand at the beginning of my list. Mr. Howard's barbarian tales excite my imagination like few others and have done so since boyhood. As I look back over my gaming career, I am reminded that I have continuously steered my games toward a more Howardian style - fast paced action, a feeling of antiquity, magic with a supernatural flavor, a human centered milieu and fantastic monsters. My love for these elements I trace to the barbarian stories written by Robert E. Howard.
R.E. Howard's stories are fast paced, full of violence (and a hint of sex), often with a touch of the supernatural or weird. They are foremost adventure stories usually set in exotic locations and involving exploration and discovery of some ancient ruins or forgotten horrors. Rather than being apologetic for the racism and sexism in his work, I will simply state it is there and that I obviously don't want to bring those aspects into my gaming. Though Mr. Howard barely left his Cross Plains, Texas home, his fertile imagination produced wide ranging, fantastic vistas that continue to inspire readers to want to grab the reins of a swift stead, leap aboard and race headlong into a rough and tumble world of high adventure full of fights and surprises.
From all accounts, Gary Gygax also enjoyed the heroic tales of Robert E. Howard from an early age (Michael Witwer, Empire of Imagination). It appears to me that despite the fact that there are Hobbits and memorized spells forgotten once cast (Vancian magic), the major literary influences on White Box come from the works of Robert E. Howard (Conan),  Fritz Leiber (Lankhmar) and L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt (Harold Shea) and Gary Gygax lists these authors among the "most immediate influences" (along with Jack Vance, HPL and A. Merritt). There is no doubt that the implied milieu of White Box is a blending of many sources, but the emphasis on fast pacing, fighting, encountering the unknown, and seeking one's fortune seems to model very well the themes explored in Mr. Howard's barbarian stories.

The Monk

Blackmoor Kung Fu
The Monk character class is introduced in Supplement II: Blackmoor. It makes sense in that supplement which also includes The Temple of the Frog in which numerous monks appear. The Monk PC class also makes sense in terms of  1975 (the year Supplement II is released). Bruce Lee died in 1973 after popularizing the "Kung Fu Fighting" style on TV (as Kato in The Green Hornet) and several exciting martial arts movies including Enter the Dragon and Fists of Fury. The "Kung Fu" TV show (starring David Carradine) aired from 1972 to 1975 and chronicled the adventures of a Shaolin monk wandering the old west armed only with his martial art. Meanwhile, White Box, and the new hobby it initiates, invites players to incorporate into their milieu things that excite them.
White Box includes no specific setting and seems to combine a number of influences in the implied setting with emphasis on sword & sorcery fantasy literature. The use of class titles, as well as arms and armor that have their roots in western medieval history suggests some strong ties to that source. Monks with their martial art skills are not a part of that western medieval tradition nor are they common in sword & sorcery sources. I believe the Monk class in Supplement II is an extension of the popularity of eastern martial arts in the popular culture of the 1970's.
The Monk class as described in Supplement II requires a Wisdom score of not less than 15, a Strength score not less than 12 and a Dexterity score of at least 15. Rolling three six sided dice in order for ability scores will produce very few characters who qualify for Monk. I assume that is the point. Monks are a subclass of Cleric and like Clerics must be human, no hobbits, dwarves or elves as PCs among the religious order. Monks may be of any alignment, but most (75%) are Lawful. Monks follow the same rules as Paladins regarding treasure - in other words they are limited to a maximum of four magical items other than weapons, four weapons and only enough wealth to maintain themselves, their men (if any) and a modest castle. As with Paladins, all excess wealth is to be given to a charitable institution or directly to the poor.
The Monk can use any weapon and has the benefit of doing additional damage points with them equal to one-half their level. They can wear no armor (although their unarmored AC improves as they level) and gain special abilities when fighting without weapons. They receive additional attacks and do additional damage while fighting without weapons and may stun an opponent. Monks gain a number of the special abilities of the Thief class including opening locks, removing traps, listening, climbing, moving silently and hiding in shadows. As the Monk gains level, they acquire the ability to speak with animals, then with plants and to heal themselves.
The abilities of the Monk seem consistent with the Bruce Lee character from the movies and I can imagine the Blackmoor Monk character having adventures somewhat like those of Mr. Lee. Being a fantasy character in a fantastic milieu the Asian trappings could be abandoned and an entirely new rationale given for the existence of such a character class should the referee choose. The aesthetic/mystic nature of the Monk's abilities suggest an exceptional human being, which is consistent with the ability score requirements for becoming a Monk. The class name overlaps with western European church monastics and is somewhat confusing in the context of the fantasy genre, but if we divorce ourselves from this anomaly and focus on the unique quality of the created setting, leaving aside historic reference, we can fit the martial arts monk into the milieu (or don't and leave it out).
Because of this mixing of influences east and west, the Monk is perhaps the most controversial of the original edition character classes. As a fan of the Bruce Lee films, I personally like the Monk as a concept, although I have some issues with the complex nature of its execution in Blackmoor. The 'mystic" side of the monk character is used in some systems to give the Monk some "magical" abilities and I think this makes sense. While playing computer RPGs such as Neverwinter Nights, the Monk is my favorite class for a solo adventurer as they seem to me the best single class to "cover all the bases". Inclusion of the Monk class alters the milieu and I can see why a referee might wish to exclude them. At the same time, the monk can be a lot of fun to play. I do think of the monk as more of a "loner" type, but maybe that is the influence of my associating the class with the characters played by Bruce Lee and David Carradine.

Rules Lite or Rules Heavy

What's in the Toolbox?
One way to look at any role-playing game rule book is as a toolbox of game components. I mostly play fantasy RPGs and the games all have a combat system, a character generation system, and a magic system. Some have a bestiary, some a skill system, some have a setting described, some don't. Some rule books are long, some short, but because of my own philosophy I approach them all as guidelines rather than strict "rules of play" to be followed slavishly. So as far as I am concerned, they are all toolboxes for me to pick and choose from so I can (try to) create the kind of game I want to referee. I frequently borrow an idea from one game to use in another, mix and match, one might say. I assume this is because my first RPG was White Box - a system that rather requires this do-it-yourself approach, but it is also a preference.
As a result, I generally run (as referee) a game that openly states "this is your game, change whatever you wish..." Frankly, I do that whether I am given permission or not and players are told this up front. As referee I try to be fair and mostly consistent and I often discuss how we will handle something in-game and use player input. In honesty, there are some rulings I have made just on my knowledge and preferences - how I see the situation in-game effects the odds of success or failure. I like the freedom to experiment, to mix it up and keep it fresh - to use my imagination. I like outcomes that make sense to me and that I can narrate once the dice are rolled. I like to reward clever role-play and innovative problem solving with a flat-out "yes, that works! No dice roll necessary."
I am of course aware that unpredictability can be bad for players. It can make it difficult for them to judge risk. Rulings can be disagreed with and seem arbitrary. I have played with a few referees that didn't seem fair and managed their game table in a way that didn't seem fun to me. The referee can make a big difference in the game experience whether the rules are short and loose or long and tight.
Some rules authors seem to try and make their game proof against poor referee skill. The rules take away as many opportunities for the referee to use their poor judgement as possible, but that term "as possible" is important. The referee still chooses the setting, role-plays the NPCs, controls pacing, acts as the eyes, ears, noses, etc. of the PCs by describing what they see, hear and smell and therefore can still "muck-up the job". It is not possible to write rules that will prevent a referee from doing a poor job.
What happens when rules become too tight, when they take too many choices away from the referee is to stifle creativity. To borrow a metaphor from art, oil paints are pretty open ended. The "artist" can create on canvas, mixing pigments and varying brush strokes, almost any image imaginable. Some "paintings" are artistic, some are even "masterpieces" and a lot are frankly bad and uninspiring. In contrast working with Colorforms (a child's set of vinyl shapes that adhere to a printed board) anyone can compose a picture that is recognizable (cartoon characters, TV show actors, etc), but the medium limits the creativity. "The Last Supper" done in Colorforms (or paint-by-number) is severely lacking compared to the original done with oils. In a similar vein, rules that are flexible and loose (even vague in places) allow greater freedom to interpret and create than rules that try to be "complete" and define too much.
Which type of game is best (most fun) depends on personal preferences. Is there room in our hobby for both approaches - absolutely. There are times I personally like to delve into a thick rule book with lots of detail and try to master it all. That can be its own brand of fun. Mostly I prefer games (with fewer rules) that promote a maximum amount of freedom for the referee (and players) because I enjoy seeing what people come up with. Part of my entertainment is being surprised by another's creativity. There are lots of ways to enjoy the hobby and I am not one to label anyone's game "bad-wrong fun". (I have some fond memories of imaginative play with Colorforms!)

Referee Alignment

A Continuum
White Box gives us the concept of Alignment; Law, Chaos and Neutral. In the LBBs, Alignment is used to classify creatures into competing camps and to influence certain magical effects. Magic swords are aligned to serve Law, Chaos or Neutrality and will resist use by those PCs of opposite alignment causing damage to them in terms of Hit Point loss. Intelligent creatures will speak an Alignment language so that they may communicate across species as well as readily identify friend and foe. "Good" and "Evil" are separate concepts from Alignment in the text of the three LBBs. Anti-Clerics are described as "Evil" and certain spells such as Detect Evil and Protection from Evil make use of the term and concept although there is no list of "Evil" beings outside the Anti-Clerics. Creatures of Chaos are often equated with "Evil" by those playing the game, but the rules do not specifically state this.
An online query for the definition of Law and Chaos gives the following results: Law - a system of rules or a statement of fact;  Chaos - complete disorder and confusion; Neutrality - impartial, the absence of decided views. These definitions seem to fit with the game mechanics as a sort of overall classification theme under which creature behavior could fall.
I occurs to me, as an exercise in logic, to apply the terms Law, Chaos and Neutral to refereeing style or preference. A Lawful referee then would be one who prefers to play by the book - the rules as written. Organization would seem to characterize the Lawful referee as would planning. The ideal referee of Law will carefully assemble campaign materials, be organized and thorough in preparation and record keeping and know the rules to the game. Appearing rigid at times, the referee of Law will have definite ideas regarding running the campaign.
By contrast the Chaotic referee will prefer rulings over rules and be unpredictable while running the game. Surprises and flexibility may be strengths of this approach. Rules will often be by fiat - at the referee's whim and highly situational in interpretation. Improvisation will take preference over preparation and the campaign may seem in flux, changeable or even arbitrary.
The referee who strives for Neutrality may seek to be impartial or to be seeking the middle path between opposite extremes - a willingness to do some planning, but ready to improvise, mostly by the rules, but with some house ruling as deemed necessary. The Neutral referee may at times appear "wishy-washy" or undecided. This may be a legitimate criticism or a by-product of trying to not dictate too strongly how the game/campaign is to proceed.
Referee alignment seems useful in terms of describing characteristics often found in various referee's style. I am not sure that there is anything definitive to learn in applying this distinction however, except maybe to assist a player with a strong preference for a particular referee style in identifying such. So should we advertise our games as run by a referee of Law, or Chaos, or Neutrality? Should we warn our players we are feeling a bit more Chaotic today?

Blackmoor Assassin

A Look at The Evil One
Supplement II: Blackmoor is influenced by Dave Arneson's original campaign of Blackmoor according to the words Gary Gygax writes in his forward to the White Box supplement published in 1975. As such, the supplement has a slightly different "feel" to it (as evidenced by the illustration above) than previous material which was more focused on Mr. Gygax's Greyhawk campaign in the case of Supplement I, or the more "generic" fantasy swords& sorcery as may be the case with the original three LBBs. Tim Kask is listed as editor of Supplement II and according to gamer legend, it was Mr. Kask who took a stack of campaign material submitted by Mr. Arneson and edited it into the Supplement we see published.
Blackmoor seems a bit "darker" to me and that has influenced my own "homebrew" campaign I fondly refer to as Dreadmoor. Supplement I: Greyhawk presents the Thief class and Paladin subclass as options for player characters. Both influence the milieu of a campaign in which they are used by becoming part of the "cast of players" in the story that develops through gaming. Supplement II introduces two new subclasses, the Monk and the Assassin and doing so makes a dramatic impact on the cast. Taken together with Temple of the Frog - the first TSR published adventure location - we have our major insights into the Blackmoor milieu.
This discourse is focused on the Assassin because I believe its inclusion among the player character classes marks a seminal event in the game. White Box and its supplements have three alignments, Law, Chaos and Neutrality. Assassins must be of Neutral alignment (in the Advanced game they must be of Evil alignment). Like many rules in the original game, this is left open to interpretation. Neutral alignment seems to me to place the assassin firmly in between the two major warring camps, serving either for pay - there is an assassin fee in Volume 3 of the LBBs and additional fee information in Supplement II. Player character assassins receive experience for paid assassinations, so presumably this is an expected part of the campaign in which Assassins appear as PCs.
Supplement II indicates that Assassins have thief skills and "may also serve as thieves". The Assassin must be a member of the assassin's guild which is headed by a guildmaster which is the highest level attainable by the assassin character. The assassin's guild seem ripe with possibilities for adventure and its mere existence in a campaign is telling. The original game leaves the moral dichotomy of "Good" and "Evil" out of alignment, but certainly supports the idea that such exists through Detect Evil and Protection from Evil spells. What is good or evil is however left up to the players to explore and discover as part of campaign play. The neutral alignment of the Blackmoor Assassin leaves this moral question unanswered. It is certainly possible to create a James Bond style organization of "agents" with license to kill in one's fantasy adventure game milieu.
If Dave Arneson ever talked about how he envisioned the Assassin class being played in his Blackmoor I am not aware of it. For me the Assassin brings a dark element to the campaign. I think of nefarious characters hiding in dark alleys, of persons in disguise slipping poison into the king's cup, of Hamlet, not 007. How the assassin is used in the game is of course up to the players - providing they can ever qualify for one. The three LBBs do not list any minimum ability scores to qualify for playing one of the three original character classes. High scores in the prime requisite grants a bonus to earned experience (low scores, a penalty), but no minimum requirement. The Greyhawk Paladin introduces the concept and requires a Charisma score of at least 17 and Lawful alignment. The Blackmoor Assassin has three prime requisites, Dexterity, Strength and Intelligence - all must be at a minimum score of 12. Rolling three d6 in order suggests the Assassin will be a rare occurrence as a PC.
Giving some thought to the Assassin and how to incorporate the class into my own campaign, my first thought is as a more deadly version of the Lankhmar Thieves guild. Then I recall that Dave Arneson is rumored to have been a fan of the Hammer Horror films which may have inspired the Cleric Turn Dead ability. The White Box Cleric I interpret as a combination of this film inspiration and the warrior monks of the crusading era that probably inspired Gary Gygax (the cover of Chainmail features what looks like a Knight Templar). The same crusader-era history includes a religious group called "al-Hashashin" who under the leadership of The Old Man of the Mountain had agents throughout the area who served as spys and killers operating from their hidden mountain fortress and who inspire the modern term assassin.
I understand Blackmoor's classification of the Assassin as a subclass of Thief. I also like the idea of the Assassin having a fantasy religious connection (possibly demonic?). The figure in the illustration taken from the Blackmoor supplement is most likely a monk, but what about recasting him as an assassin? Housed in a temple as a member of a secret order of religious fanatics who have agents across the campaign, perhaps the assassin has access to divine magic in the form of items or even spells? I hope this isn't stretching the original concept too far.

Is 5th Edition Old School?

My Perspective
Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro have done an excellent job listening to "old school" gamers and 5e is much closer to older editions of the game than 4th Edition was. From a marketing stand-point, 5e maybe hits the sweet spot between appealing to as many hobbyists, old and new school, as possible. Prompted by Mike Mearls' Greyhawk Variant and recent release of Unearthed Arcana: Greyhawk Initiative, I am once again comparing 5e to my concepts of an "old school" game. I now have enough experience with 5e that I feel comfortable commenting on that from my personal old school perspective.
Over the decades since the beginning of the hobby initiated by White Box, gamers have come to expect new and different things from their rule system. PC individualization and ability to survive have increased over time when comparisons are made between older and newer editions of the game. The White Box PC level progression can be stated as "zero-to-hero-to-superhero". In contrast, WizBro era editions tend to start PCs at higher levels of relative power and then progress more quickly to super power status and beyond. A combination of the ascending Armor Class mechanic introduced in 3e, Ability score bonuses and Feats can drastically increase the damage output of PCs. The result is that today's "super hero" PC has dramatically changed the "feel" of the game for many older referees (myself included).
The relative power level of a 1st level character is dramatically higher in 5e than White Box as evidenced by the chances to hit an enemy in melee. Using the Alternative Combat System found in Volume 1: Men & Magic, the 1st level PC (of any class) has to roll a 12 or higher on a d20 to hit Armor Class 7 (Leather Armor), a common AC for many "monsters". Rolling a 12 or higher on the twenty-sided dice gives a 45% chance of success (high Strength does not increase chance to hit in White Box). So a little less than one-half the time the PC hits the monster.
In 5e To-Hit numbers are determined quite different from using the matrix of White Box (and early AD&D). The 1st level PC has a base AC target number to hit rolling a d20. Leather Armor gives an AC of 11. To make an attack, the player rolls a twenty-sided die and adds any Ability Bonus (usually Strength bonus for melee) and Proficiency Bonus (+2) for a 1st level character. Creating an "average" PC by-the-book in 5e likely results in a Strength Ability bonus of  +3 (for a Fighter), so the total adds to the d20 roll is +5. In order to hit an AC of 11, the fighter needs a score of 6 or better (11 minus 5 equals 6). This is a 75% chance of success - much higher than that of the White Box Fighting Man.
Player Character power level is only one aspect of play affecting how one feels about the game. "rulings not rules" is another commonly held believe regarding "old school" play and in this 5e is a return to a more rules lite, loose system allowing referee fiat to a greater degree than other WizBro era editions. The 5e books are written with a number of options in place which can be accessed or ignored by the referee allowing customization of the game while staying technically within the rules as written. Whether this goes far enough to satisfy the individual referee is a question each must answer for themselves.
The 5e system currently comes in two flavors: the full system found in the three core hardbacks and a "Basic" system found online as free downloads. The Basic 5e is a simplified and cut-down version of the full game and it includes no art. In effect the material it does contain seems more consistent with an "old school" approach to the game than the full version. The Basic game limits character class selection to the basic four - cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard; it limits races to the traditional human, elf, dwarf and halfling. There are no warlocks or sorcerers, no dragonborn or tiefling, and no feats. Rogue Comet has taken the Basic 5e material and re-imagined it as Dungeonesque which is marketed as 5e optimized for "old school" play.
I have not used the Greyhawk Initiative variant rules, but reading them I am reminded of how the Perrin Conventions (1976) were used together with White Box to give more structure and tactical focus to combat using the LBBs. The Greyhawk Initiative system uses a count-down mechanic that likely results in ranged attacks going off first followed by movement, melee and spell casting. Each player must declare at the beginning of each round what they intend to do. According to Mr. Mearls, it may also make healing a bit more difficult to use in combat (and thereby give a more deadly game?).
Ease of character generation and the ability to handle frequent character death go hand-in-hand in my opinion and I find 5e restrictive in this regard. Healing is frequent and readily available in 5e reflecting more recent popular trends in game design. PCs, and NPCs using similar rules, are difficult to kill using all the "get out of death" options available. PC death, when it happens, is often the result of a "perfect storm" of everything going wrong rather than a calculated gamble on the part of a player. The incremental reduction of White Box PC hit points allows the player to calculate how long their PC is "likely" to last in a fight. The player can quickly "do the odds" in their head and make decisions based on known probabilities. The "save or die" mechanics of some traps and poisons is an obvious exception to this "predictability" in White Box and while perhaps feeling "unfair" to some, maintains an element of "fear" in the game. A dead PC can result in a period "out of game" for the player forced to generate a new character that is directly proportional to how much time needs to be spent in chargen. Thus I think quicker is better in a game likely to have high PC mortality rates.
All these aspects combine in a game system to create a "feel" at the game table. If the referee desires an "old school" feel and has players who also buy into this style of gaming, can 5e deliver? I am still debating this, but also finding myself leaning ever further away from saying, "yes, it can". I like that older modules can be played with 5e (more easily than with 4e or 3e) and that WizBro is publishing new material inspired by the old modules. I like Backgrounds and the fact that Feats are optional. I like Advantages and Disadvantages as a mechanic and the general looseness and brevity of the rules (and the fact that there are ONLY three books). I am less happy with healing, PC mortality and "power level".
The 5e rules give a nice game, an enjoyable tabletop adventure game experience and the published play-aids are entertaining and well written for the most part. WizBro is doing a very good job with the 5e product in my opinion and I am quite pleased over-all. Perhaps it is inconsequential whether 5e is "old school" or not.  Maybe all that matters is that it has appeal to a self-styled "old school" referee.

d100 Clones

Adventure Gaming with Percentile Dice
My recent exploration of Zweihander has me thinking about the trend in our hobby to re-imagine older game systems, add new material and create something both old and new. In the better examples an idea that has been around for a while is improved on, either through better organization and layout, better game mechanics in one or more areas, additional material which builds on and takes the original concept to bigger and better things, or in some other way brings something new and worthwhile to the hobby. The flexibility and popularity of White Box and mechanics based on the use of a twenty-sided die has produced the majority of these clones, simulacrum, pseudo-clones, what-ifs and love letters to... But there are also a few of the re-imaginings which focus on games using other mechanical systems involving either six-sided dice or percentiles. Zweihander is one such product which takes its inspiration from a percentile or d100 roll-under system. There are others.

OpenQuest has a new "refreshed" edition out. It takes its inspiration from the d100 games originally produced by Chaosium in the 1970's and re-tooled by Mongoose around 2006. OpenQuest makes use of the Mongoose Open Game License (OGL) System Reference Document (SRD) and is therefore an open game license product itself. It is this OGL concept spearheaded by Ryan Dancey at Wizards of the Coast and widely adopted that has made the re-imaginings (and a host of creative products) possible. No small thanks is due Mr. Dancey and WotC for this "gift" to our hobby. OpenQuest is generic in the sense that it is not directly connected to a specific world, but like many of the d100 clones it clings closely to the original bronze age myth-based heroic age feel that RuneQuest has. Battle magic, spirit magic, divine magic, cults, and sorcery will feel familiar to anyone conversant with the old Glorantha based products, but each section of the OpenQuest rules also bears the unique stamp of Mr. Newport's vision of his preferred game style.
Percentile dice have been rolling around the game table for a long time. Basing game mechanics on a roll-under percentile is about the simplest and easiest to understand mechanic yet invented for introducing chance into data driven game play. I recall rolling the two polyhedrons used for generating percentiles as part of wargaming long before I heard of White Box, role-playing or fantasy gaming. Several early fantasy role-play games made use of percentile dice in one way or another, probably because they were being used in historical wargaming from which the hobby emerged.

The first game I recall playing that used a straight-up, intuitive, roll-under, percentile based skill system as the central mechanic was RuneQuest from which Basic RolePlaying (BRP) is developed. The BRP engine powers most of Chaosium's many RPGs including personal favorites Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer and Magic World. Basic RolePlaying has been included in many of Chaosium's RPGs as a slim, generic, "introductory" or basic rules book and as such may have been the hobby's first "generic" rules. Currently Basic RolePlaying takes the form of the big "Gold Book" which assembles most (if not all) the various rules from the many systems Chaosium has published in a generic toolbox format aimed at the referee who wishes to design their own custom version using the d100 engine.

Mongoose Publishing acquired the rights to the name RuneQuest and its brand of d100 after WotC had opened the Pandora's Box of the OGL and therefore their versions of d100 were also released as Open License products. OpenQuest is Newt Newport's interpretation of the Mongoose OGL rules. Mr. Newport has built OpenQuest as his vision of d100 and refined it for his preferred style of play. I find it a tightly written and slightly more accessible combination of some of my favorite elements of older editions of RuneQuest and Stormbringer.

Before it lost use of the Glorantha and RuneQuest intellectual properties, Mongoose released a major redesign of the d100 system under the title RuneQuest II. Written by Pete Nash and Lawrence Whitaker, RuneQuest II (as Legend) is one of my favorite iterations of d100. It is still in print, with references to the Glorantha setting removed, as Legend by Mongoose. Mr. Nash and Mr. Whitaker subsequently formed their own company, The Design Mechanism, and continue to refine their vision for d100 with RuneQuest 6 (while they had rights to the RQ name) and Mythras. I have the highest praise for the work of Mr. Nash and Mr. Whitaker both as authors of rules and setting books.

While d100 arguably holds second place behind d20 in popularity as a system mechanic it definitely fits my definition of "old school" with roots in the pre 1990s RPGs. Many of the games that use the d100 mechanic are among my all-time favorites. Many I still enjoy playing.