Which do you prefer or at least which do you play the most? The newest game, or newest edition with the innovative new mechanics and fresh face or something old and yellowed from the tattered box or nearly disintegrated binder?

I know I flip back and forth regularly. There is something exciting and stimulating about a brand new product with generations of gaming trial and error behind its design. Crisp, clean, straight forward rules right to the point are like a shiny new ride. BUT.. there are times the creak and moan of an oldie stir something besides nostalgia. Somehow even 'clunky' feels good.



Old or new?

I recently decided to run a modern horror one shot for a couple players. Flipping through a number of possibilities, including the truly ancient and recently published I happened to flip open an old copy of Pacesetter's Chill. Man did that take me back and more to the point, has damn near won me over as the system of choice for our game. Granted, Im taking a look at Cryptworld as it appears to be the most current and true to form version of the old Classic but Im betting I stick to the worn out old box and soda stained rulebooks.

"Which do you prefer, a playtested, reliable game system that has stood the test of years or the latest flashy, vacuous crap spit out by people who know nothing about games?"

Gee, isn't this fun?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939549"Which do you prefer, a playtested, reliable game system that has stood the test of years or the latest flashy, vacuous crap spit out by people who know nothing about games?"

Gee, isn't this fun?

Examples? What crap have you had bad experiences with and what oldies do you still run?

I like both old and new.  There were so many memorable games back in the late 70s and through the 80s.  That time was really before most people had PCs, and game consoles were not really the best place for RPGs, at least not until the mid to late 80s.  

As far as new games, I think REH's Conan RPG is an exceptional system.

I don't think 'modern' registers that much to me, but earlier games have the advantage of having established fan bases and tend to occupy archetypal niches in gaming genre. When I think of fantasy RPGs, I can't go past D&D or RQ. Ditto for sci-fi and Traveller or horror and CoC. The big archetypal genre games have long time been established, so new games can either try to compete with these or try to establish a new niche from an ever decreasing list.

Later games and editions do have the advantage of having had more time to polish systems and presentation, however. That said, too many new games try to make claims of originality when they aren't really  - and/or try to set up systems and gameplay that don't really work, just for the sake of originality.

Quote from: Bluddworth;939554I like both old and new.  There were so many memorable games back in the late 70s and through the 80s.  That time was really before most people had PCs, and game consoles were not really the best place for RPGs, at least not until the mid to late 80s.  

As far as new games, I think REH's Conan RPG is an exceptional system.

You commenting based on the quick start or gave you played from the pre release drafts?

Mostly old, but have ventured into newer games over the years.  There's a lot to be said for knowing the ins and outs of your old trusty game system- if there's any warts, the group ironed them out long ago.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939553Examples? What crap have you had bad experiences with and what oldies do you still run?

I dislike Star Wars d20, D&D 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder. GURPS and CHAMPIONS I'll play using pregens but character creation is a nightmare. D&D 4, 5, and "Burning Wheel" I riffled through for ten seconds and put down and said "too many fucking rules."

Essentially, anything over about 128 pages is simply too long.

SW d20 is broken; by that I mean "the actual effect of the rules in play does not match the description of what the rules are supposed to attempt."  PATHFINDER is a fucking nightmare; it reminds me of Kirk trying to teach the gangsters to play Fizzbin. Also, people talk about "more options for fighters" but what I've observed in actual play is that instead of the fighter saying "I attack" round after round the fighter says "I Power Attack" round after round.

In short, newer versions of older games, whether a "direct descendant" like D&D or something "related" like Pathfinder or Burning Wheel, absolutely fail to provide a better play experience, and in many ways due to the greater number and complexity of poorly balanced rules provide a substantially worse experience.

YMM, as always, V.

At the game table, I enjoy both, though generally speaking I feel older games tend to have more staying power. Of course, the rise of the OSR and the continuing evolution of gamelines such as Runequest/Mythras and Traveller hewing very close to the originals further muddies the issue.

However, I am definitely drawn to old books in general, including old gaming books, as physical products. Musty smell, yellow pages, old typography and layout... thumbing through a worn old book is a window into the past. Bonus if it's annotated.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939544I know I flip back and forth regularly. There is something exciting and stimulating about a brand new product with generations of gaming trial and error behind its design. Crisp, clean, straight forward rules right to the point are like a shiny new ride. BUT.. there are times the creak and moan of an oldie stir something besides nostalgia. Somehow even 'clunky' feels good.

False dichotomy; there's plenty of older systems that are exceptionally streamlined and masterfully designed just as there are plenty of new systems that are 'clunky' messes.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;939578False dichotomy; there's plenty of older systems that are exceptionally streamlined and masterfully designed just as there are plenty of new systems that are 'clunky' messes.

I  understand that, was speaking generally.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939563I dislike Star Wars d20, D&D 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder. GURPS and CHAMPIONS I'll play using pregens but character creation is a nightmare. D&D 4, 5, and "Burning Wheel" I riffled through for ten seconds and put down and said "too many fucking rules."

I've always liked GURPS combat better than character creation.  The problem with D&D 3.0+ is that 3.0 tried to be GURPS.  D&D never needed to be GURPS.  I already had GURPS, I needed D&D to be D&D.

Anyhow, the following 150 point build will work for most settings as a rogue, ranger, or noble tough guy.

Attributes
ST 13 [30];
DX 13 [60];
IQ 11 [20];
HT 12 [20].

Perception 14 [15];

Advantages:
Combat Reflexes [15];
Comfortable Wealth [10].

Disadvantages:
Sense of Duty (human kind) [-15];
Honesty [-10];
Impulsive [-10];
Overconfidence [-5];
Stubborn [-5]; (That's enough to give any GM nightmares)

Skills:
Brawling 15 [4]; (good for +1 unarmed damage!)
Climbing 12 [1];
Broad Sword 14 [4]; (or Gunner Machine Guns, Cannon or Blaster)
Fast Talk 11 [2];
Knife 14 [2];
Knife Throwing 13 [1];
Riding 13 [2]; (or Drive Automobile)
Savoir Faire 11 [1];
Shield 14 [2];
Stealth 13 [2];
Swimming 13 [1];
Tracking 14 [2] (or Observation).

Quote from: rgrove0172;939580I  understand that, was speaking generally.

Even generally speaking, most systems aquire "clunk" over time...

compare Shadowrun 2e to Shadowrun 4e
compare D&D Red Box to WoTC D&D
compare Pendragon 1st edition to 5th ed

I'd say its actually far rarer for new editions to become more streamlined and less clunky. Adding crunch seems to go hand in hand with system overhauls.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939580I  understand that, was speaking generally.

You're speaking out of your ass. Again.

In general, I prefer old games, but I am always interested in new games.

I am not into narrative mechanics and rarely into new editions of stuff I already own, so in the past decade, I have been more intrigued by new board games than by most new RPGs.