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.
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.
Quote from: rgrove0172;939557You commenting based on the quick start or gave you played from the pre release drafts?
Pre released drafts, I've had access to them as early as they were available, as a kickstarter backer. I can't wait to get the collector's edition and other hardcovers in my hands!!
Mu. One of my favourite games, ACKS, is a modern take on the Expert Set for old D&D.
Quote from: David Johansen;939804I 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.
That's interesting to hear. I thought 3e did a really good job, essentially being like 1/2e with the results of several years of play experience. But I suppose that was also the point where I and GMs I knew started making "player packets" so they would know what made sense to build their characters with, or even a parcket for each available PC background. 4e is a whole other level of extra noise, and yet there are players who take it further, using the new rules to try to figure out what the point cost should be for various abilities they invent. Seems a bit weird to me, as I rarely think about the character points much at all except as a rough balance guideline.
Quote from: trechriron;939810...
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. ...).
...
Once you find a GM (or combat referee) who can do the calculations quickly, then the game mechanics are just features making things make sense and work well. And then you can recruit players who don't even need to know what GURPS is, because the GM can just use English and a map and ask them what they want to do, and tell them what happens.