Quote from: rgrove0172;939544Granted, 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.

Chill 1e is a good game. For a one shot or short campaign, I'd just use the old box.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939544Which 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'll look in old rule books as more of a history lesson on adventure gaming. But I play using rule books that have published refined role-play game mechanics in them.

I don't like trying to learn new rules, so generally old school & OSR, but I do like 5e D&D and find it easy to run with an old school vibe, or a different vibe depending on preference (eg I like the 5e Primeval Thule campaign book). I use Paizo Pathfinder stuff but I use it for 5e or my Classic BECM D&D campaign, not Pathfinder. My current campaigns are 5e Wilderlands (lower magic, with old school rules options), Classic BECM Mystara, and 5e Varisia/Golarion (with a slightly 3e/PF feel, eg some magic item purchase). Been jonesing for some d6 Star Wars after seeing Rogue One though!

I generally seem to prefer newer rule sets which are refinements of older ones, such as Mythras (formerly RQ6), ACKS, or Mongoose Traveller (1e; haven't looked at 2e).  In theory, at least, that should get me the best of both worlds.

I don't think old or new is a clear or meaningful way to divide games or make choices.

I'm also very picky and particular.

In general though, the newer RPGs I've looked at seem to have flashy books that weren't possible/viable before, and often seem to have attitudes and styles that rub me the wrong way, though not always. I don't like games that focus on style or genre expectations or narrative collaboration or simplification or their own stylishness/coolness, or non-simulationist stuff. I want literal detailed simulations with interesting mapped tactical combat. That mainly has me playing GURPS 3e/4e hybrid with many optional rules and layers of house rules, and only peeking at other games to see if there is anything I can assimilate or use for inspiration for my house rules, which usually there is not.

I even dislike the style shift from GURPS 3e to 4e. 4e has some good rules adjustments and nice presentation, and it does incorporate many rules that were hidden in supplements in 3e. But it also subtly streamlined, smoothed, and IMO dumbed down some things in ways I feel are steps in directions that don't work so well. And the resulting mountain of abilities and stuff from all genres in the core books seems ridiculously large and mostly irrelevant to what I play. I never play supers, don't use the Psi system, and usually don't do high-tech, and don't do "cinematic" or unrealistic abilities, so there's a massive amount of stuff to ignore.

I've run campaigns with the latest edition of a popular game that still wasn't out of Kickstarter:).
I've run campaigns with a system that was older than any of the players except me, and then only with a single-digit number of years;).

Bottom line, if I like it, I'd use it.

These days I prefer games with simple and fast rules with an eye for genre emulation and narrative/personal goals-oriented play. Things like Cortex+, PbtA, Dramasystem, Blades in the Dark, etc. Don't know if this is what you call "new age" though.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939544Granted, 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.

If you already have the Chill 1e books, sure go with that. But Cryptworld is pretty much Chill 1e in system and "feel," plus it's a heck of a lot more affordable. Also, all the classic Chill 1e stuff is compatible with CW, so there's that. Finally, there are a lot more options for new monster investigation organizations and new "things" not found in the original. So CW (and its Monsters Macabre supplement) would do well as Chill 1e "supplementary" materials if you decide to stick with the classic 1e.

/coauthor of CW

Games particularly RPGs, don't age, they play as well or not as they did when they were first published. The presentation in some cases could be made better. This is the area where newer likely better provided that the authors didn't dick around with changing the game as the same time.

People tastes changes over the years both at the individual level and at the hobby wide level. The hobby wide level is just an average of multiple people pursuing their interests. The only effect on you as a individual gamer is how easy or hard it is to find other gamers to play a given RPG. Even then the Internet has changed everything and if you are willing to use the numerous tools available even the fans of the most obscure RPG can find fellow gamers willing to play.

Furthermore if you are willing to put the time in, the bar to supporting any given RPG is much lower with digital technology.

The OP is pretty much a non-issue in my mind. However I will say our present situation has result in a second golden age of tabletop roleplaying with a wide diversity of well supported games.

Quote from: estar;939772However I will say our present situation has result in a second golden age of tabletop roleplaying with a wide diversity of well supported games.

This.

Funny how people used to say the hobby was doomed or something a couple years ago. I think right now is one of the most vibrant times to be a role playing gamer.

Quote from: Itachi;939748These days I prefer games with simple and fast rules with an eye for genre emulation and narrative/personal goals-oriented play. Things like Cortex+, PbtA, Dramasystem, Blades in the Dark, etc. Don't know if this is what you call "new age" though.

Sounds plenty New Age to me:).
For good and ill.

Quote from: Itachi;939781This.

Funny how people used to say the hobby was doomed or something a couple years ago. I think right now is one of the most vibrant times to be a role playing gamer.

Funnier still, some people keep believing that;).

Quote from: Skarg;939639I even dislike the style shift from GURPS 3e to 4e. 4e has some good rules adjustments and nice presentation, and it does incorporate many rules that were hidden in supplements in 3e. But it also subtly streamlined, smoothed, and IMO dumbed down some things in ways I feel are steps in directions that don't work so well. And the resulting mountain of abilities and stuff from all genres in the core books seems ridiculously large and mostly irrelevant to what I play. I never play supers, don't use the Psi system, and usually don't do high-tech, and don't do "cinematic" or unrealistic abilities, so there's a massive amount of stuff to ignore.

I still haven't gotten over the shift from 1/2e GURPS to 3e which always got too fiddly and detail focussed and turned lots of stuff into advantages and disadvantages that made it too expensive to build effective 100 point characters.  For all that I loved GURPS Vehicles and have always wanted to do a very wargamey sf campaign built around it.

I like new stuff, in general.  Old stuff has some ideas, but I've found that SOME the older stuff doesn't give enough detail, or simply assumes you'd magically guess the author's intent.  But it all has merit.

Generally speaking, I prefer the deadliness of older games, and the clarity of newer ones. Combining both makes me happiest.

I like new stuff that cleans up older stuff, like Castles & Crusades. I grew tired of playing older games for various reasons, but with some polish, I can look at them with new eyes.

I like shiny new stuff like FFG Star Wars because there's some nifty ideas within and the game and (despite what might appear at first to be a complicated resolution method), plays well.

I find that the majority of players I recruit in the wild want some crunch to their games. Generally the ability to customize characters and map some kind of scheme to growth. However, they also want a compelling "plot" and "reason" the characters are growing. IME people are more compelled to play FFG Star Wars than C&C. I have 5 games scheduled this weekend at OrcaCon for C&C. I have no signups yet. The FFG games (I'm not running) are nearly full. I also see Shadows of the Demon Lord games filling up (a game with more crunch than say C&C) as are the MM3e games. Of course, the creators are running them so there may be some "celebrity" appeal. :-D

On the opposite scale it took me 6+ months to recruit a GURPS gaming group. So, crunch in options is good, but crunch in calculations is bad (from what I can infer by interest from players/responses to meetups, etc. ...).

Newness vs. Oldness doesn't seem to be a leading factor. Generally, a potential player has some foreknowledge of the system pitched and has formed an opinion, or they have never heard of it and ask clarifying questions to see if the game fits their idea of fun. I have found this to be true whether I'm pitching Alternity Star*Drive or FFG's Star Wars.