Do you like the older RPG systems better than the newer ones?

[Wraith]

I wouldn't say that I intentionally go out of my way to prefer older system more than newer ones.
I've tried all of the D&Ds from the 1970's to 2010's, all of the WFRP's from the 1980's to 2010's, and a bunch of niche systems that only ever get one edition from across three decades. I own probably 20+ games systems, some of which from the year I was born and some published within the last couple of years, and more than one of which would make the "average player" (whatever THAT is) look at my with confusion and go, "Wha..?".

All that being said... It tends to be the older (pre-2000, generally) systems that I think of when I recall my favourite settings or gaming stories. Despite them often having many more janky mechanics that have to be worked against or otherwise houseruled, whereas newer systems tend to be better polished, I tend to find such problems as endearing rather than annoying.
Similarly, while this is entirely subjective, I find that older systems have more imaginative settings. Often this is because they have the benefit of hindsight - one couldn't reasonably expect D&D5th to have released as many sourcebooks and splatbooks as D&D3.5, it's not been out as long - but just as often I just... like them more.

I like Vampire: The Masquerade more than I like Vampire: The Requiem, I like Planescape and Dark Sun more than I like Ravnica, and I like Cyberpunk and SLA Industries more than I like Shadowrun. That's not to say that I dislike any of the others of course, but I just happen to find myself drawn to the older games given the choice.

[Ignimortis]

Often this is because they have the benefit of hindsight - one couldn't reasonably expect D&D5th to have released as many sourcebooks and splatbooks as D&D3.5, it's not been out as long - but just as often I just... like them more.

Actually, 3.5 ran from 2003 to 2008, and most splats were released before 2007, IIRC. So four years for dozens of books. 5e has been running from 2014 to 2019 (so right now), it's in its' 5th year, and we had...three or four official sourcebooks with content? No new classes outside of UA which is semi-official, maybe double the number of archetypes from core (in total), lots of races but very few feats, etc. I find that 3.5's desire to make almost every concept a reality, was better than avoiding bloat like 5e tries to do.

Pathfinder beats them both on that account, though, since it has archetypes and classes both galore. Though it uses way less subsystems, and 3.5 was great for that, because you weren't limited to "this is magic from class list X", and had incarnum, binding, initiators, etc.

[2D8HP]

...the development of deliberately rules-light games as an important milestone. Not the primordial sparseness of oD&D, but the conscious pushback against the bloated mass things like D&D and Rifts had evolved into. (Fudge?)

Now that is an interesting development!

The 48 page 1977 "bluebook" was a simplification of D&D, but it was explicitly a stepping stone to OD&D and AD&D, '81 BD&D was more of a deliberate simplification, but "rules light" took quite awhile to really catch on, as much of the direction "back-in-the-day" was towards greater complexity and "realism" (Rolemaster, et cetera).

[Wraith]

Actually, 3.5 ran from 2003 to 2008, and most splats were released before 2007, IIRC. So four years for dozens of books.

Holy cow, was it really such a short time? Talk about rose-tinted glasses.... Though it's quite likely that I have just misremembered 3.0 and 3.5 as one long period

I find that 3.5's desire to make almost every concept a reality, was better than avoiding bloat like 5e tries to do.

Still, time dilation aside, this is what I was similarly getting at. 3/3.5 had huge amounts of stuff available and a lot of it wasn't very good - some of it was just outright bad - but it was much easier for me to find find the stuff that I did like and thus the tendency to prefer it. Same goes for OWoD, I had thousands of pages of their sourcebooks that I know was dross, but I still think very fondly of the stuff that was good.

[Anonymouswizard]

I find that 3.5's desire to make almost every concept a reality, was better than avoiding bloat like 5e tries to do.

I still think there has to be a decent middle ground, mainly because while 3.5 and 4e were somewhat insane when it came to book count (seriously, faster releases than most generics), I don't think I've seen any RPG produce books at such a low rate as 5e unless they focused entirely on adventures.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I still think there has to be a decent middle ground, mainly because while 3.5 and 4e were somewhat insane when it came to book count (seriously, faster releases than most generics), I don't think I've seen any RPG produce books at such a low rate as 5e unless they focused entirely on adventures.

Exalted 3e?

[Anonymouswizard]

Exalted 3e?

That's released? I thought it was supposed to take another six years

[Friv]

Exalted 3e?

Hey, Exalted has put out 82 different products in four years, that's so many.

*don't ask how many are sourcebooks*

[Knaight]

I still think there has to be a decent middle ground, mainly because while 3.5 and 4e were somewhat insane when it came to book count (seriously, faster releases than most generics), I don't think I've seen any RPG produce books at such a low rate as 5e unless they focused entirely on adventures.

I'd argue that 5e is in that middle ground, especially as lots of RPGs release 1 book (or 1 book of any size) and call it a day.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd argue that 5e is in that middle ground, especially as lots of RPGs release 1 book (or 1 book of any size) and call it a day.

True, although I think there's also a difference between an RPG with ongoing support and an RPG meant to only be one book in length (if only because the latter tend to be much more specialised). I don't think I've seen an RPG with ongoing support with a slower release schedule than 5e, but not every game needs ongoing support.

In fact, the only reason I care about support for 5e is the presence of subclasses. If the game was structured more like 2e or 3.X I'd consider the Player's Handbook to be pretty definitive, giving a large enough set of archetypes that the game didn't need more support. But because subclasses can be incredibly specific I find myself wanting more of them, compatred to Basic D&D where 'Cleric/Fighter/Magic-User/Thief' was enough (and I really should pick up the Rules Cyclopedia).

[Morty]

A lot of the extra material in 3.X that's actually worth something serves as patch jobs for things that work poorly or not at all in the core rules - ranger and paladin spells, combat styles that aren't wielding a two-handed weapon, ranged rogues and archery in general, and so on. 5E is comparatively less full of holes in core, so the slower release schedule works well enough.

[Vorpal Glaive]

Do you like the older RPG systems better than the newer ones?

Older than what? Newer than what?

[MrSandman]

Older than what? Newer than what?

It's quite simple. "Older" RPGs are the ones that were around when you first started playing, while "newer" RPGs are the ones that have come out since you got too busy with adult stuff to keep learning new rulesets.

This is the definition people have been using here.

[HouseRules]

This is the definition people have been using here.

Old School refers to anything before you are 26 years old, and New School refers to anything after you are 26 years old.

18 (High School Diploma)
22 (Bachelors) (21 since everywhere else is 3 year Bachelors)
24 (Masters) (22 since everywhere else is 1 year Master)
26 (Doctorate) (25 since everywhere else is 3 year Doctorate, Dissertation only, no classes)

While those age are the expected range, most people are older than the expectation.

[Cluedrew]

First off my favourite system hasn't been released yet, draw what conclusions from that you will.

On Innovations: I agree that there is fewer innovations in newer role-playing games, but that is not what I think they have going for them. We start with the innovations that define the gene, then people experiment with it and finally having seen a lot of variants we can start to refine the formula. And I think we are in the refinement stage. The changes will be smaller (some times too small to be worth switching) and they will not always get it right. But I think we are seeing a general trend upwards in quality of new systems.

And the new systems I like, they aren't particularly innovations. They are not formulaic either, but most of the time it is just a combination of things. Fate is just Fudge with some narrative mechanics tacked on. The system that I know that is most similar to Powered by the Apocalypse is GURPS* but it has completely different goal. It is focused and narrative instead of a generic simulation. And those are the biggest new systems out there.

And the new editions of long running systems do seem to be improvements. I would never recommend D&D 3.5e to a new player over D&D 5e. The old version has advantages, but for a new player I would recommend the streamlined one. People seem to be looking forward to Exalted 3e books. ShadowRun 6th has people worried, but it hasn't been released yet. We will see, its a trend not a rule.

* OK it is mostly the Xd6 system but bear with me.

[Morty]

Old School refers to anything before you are 26 years old, and New School refers to anything after you are 26 years old.

18 (High School Diploma)
22 (Bachelors)
24 (Masters)
26 (Doctorate)

While those age are the expected range, most people are older than the expectation.

I'm reasonably certain no one has ever classified RPGs this way.

[2D8HP]

Old School refers to anything before you are 26 years old, and New School refers to anything after you are 26 years old.

18 (High School Diploma)
22 (Bachelors)
24 (Masters)
26 (Doctorate)

While those age are the expected range, most people are older than the expectation.

I was 26 in 1994 and I regard that year as pretty late when it comes to RPG's, so while certainly anything after that date I'd class as "new", you already had some "new" by then.

1994 had Castle Falkenstein (a great setting and used cards instead of dice!), but I'd put the divide ealier, 1978 (RuneQuest), 1981(Champions), 1985 (Pendragon, Unearthed Arcana), and 1988 (2e AD&D) all seem more appropriate for the divide, and by my lights 1991's Vampire/World of Darkness definetely belongs in the "new" category.

[Anonymouswizard]

Old School refers to anything before you are 26 years old, and New School refers to anything after you are 26 years old.

18 (High School Diploma)
22 (Bachelors)
24 (Masters)
26 (Doctorate)

While those age are the expected range, most people are older than the expectation.

What kind of crazy ages are those? Everybody knows you get your Bachelor's at 21 and your Masters at 22.

In all seriousness, to me 'Old School' basically means 0-2e D&Ð and BRP, as well as first edition Traveller, while 'New School' would be Apocalypse World and it's extended family, with almost everything else falling into 'the general body' of RPGs.

On the other hand, the next game I'm running is going to be either BD&D* (elf is a class, fight me) or Traveller, so I don't exactly dislike older games. In all honesty I find games from every era tend to make the same mistake of overcomplication, do we really need a differentiation between Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, or can we just have one 'Magician' class fluffed as you will?

* Somewhat houseruled, Clerics don't exist as such and all members of the class have the Druid restrictions.

[LibraryOgre]

I was 26 in 1994 and I regard that year as pretty late when it comes to RPG's, so while certainly anything after that date I'd class as "new", you already had some "new" by then.

1994 had Castle Falkenstein (a great setting and used cards instead of dice!), but I'd put the divide ealier, 1978 (RuneQuest), 1981(Champions), 1985 (Pendragon, Unearthed Arcana), and 1988 (2e AD&D) all seem more appropriate for the divide, and by my lights 1991's Vampire/World of Darkness definetely belongs in the "new" category.

Yeah, but that's because you're old.

TBH, I think the "older" and "newer" is always going to be highly subjective and, as you pointed out, age doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of design choices. I mean Palladium is a 40 year old system, but continues to put out books using what is functionally the same system as they ever did. Is "Dead Reign" a "new" game because it came out in 2008? Or is it an old game because it's using a version of a system that hasn't changed appreciably from 1987? Some "revolutions" in game design are just recognitions of earlier things that were happening.

[Aotrs Commander]

Depends...?

I certainly dropped AD&D like a hot coal after the release of 3.0, and 3.0 at 3.5; played and tolerate 4E but won't run it, no interest in 5E. Maybe if 4E had been 5E, I might have given it a chance, but by the time it came out, I had already bascially modified 3.5 to my liking for over a decade (and it's even more if a hybrid with PF at this point) and I wasn't going to spend more hundreds of hours making more houserules and huge lists of stuff. So I guess it depends if you qualify 3.5/PF as "old" or "new."

I have lots of WFRP quest books (though we haven't played that in YEARS), so I have never bothered looking at the newer edition, as that would defeat the object of having the quest books (if I was gonna convert, one version of WFRP to another would not be the way I'd go, it'd be to 3.Aotrs or Rolemaster...) So "old" wins there, I guess.

Actually, I suspect you could say more that "I reject [all your editions] and substitute my own" since the Rolemaster we play is basically still 2nd edition/Classic, but with ancillery stuff (principally gear, attack tables, crits) from the later editions, because they were just better applied.

(D&D (various) and RM, and to a lesser degree WFRP and HeroQuest are the only systems we've used to any real degree. I am generally not a fan of genre-specific games, and the rules-lite games have zero appeal to me; basically, I take the attidue of why I am paying them to have a system where I have to make up rules stuff? I can do that myself with HeroQuest (or at a real push Star Wars D20 which I used for parody superheroes once); so if a system doesn't offer a good set of crunch, then anything clever it does do might well be ripped out and pasted onto 3.A or RM anyway. (4E did, for example, have some clever ideas - the solo template led to my equivilent, which was one of the best house-rules I've ever penned.))

[HouseRules]

I though the Joke is Old School is when Someone is in School, and New School is when Someone is on the other side (optionally teaching).

[Anonymouswizard]

I though the Joke is Old School is when Someone is in School, and New School is when Someone is on the other side (optionally teaching).

Well that got dark. Do we have the diamonds for a Raise Dead spell?

[HouseRules]

Well that got dark. Do we have the diamonds for a Raise Dead spell?

In context, other side meant not in school, or teaching instead of being a student.

It gets dark when context are ignored.

Roll another character loses 3 levels.
Raise Dead spells loses 2 levels.
Raise Dead Completely (renamed to Resurrection) loses 1 level.
True Resurrection (3E) loses 0 level.

[opaopajr]

Yes, very much so.

[Cluedrew]

Question for the "yes" crowd: Do you feel there is anything new systems have forgotten? Is it just a matter of it is not enough of a step up to worth learning new systems or do you feel something has been lost?

Or - as a third option - do you just like an old game despite it being bad? That's fine too. I'm not going to argue my favourite system is actually the best by any universal measure.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Question for the "yes" crowd: Do you feel there is anything new systems have forgotten? Is it just a matter of it is not enough of a step up to worth learning new systems or do you feel something has been lost?

I'm not an old system guy, but from what I've heard people say I think it generally boils down to some combination of familiarity and... stylistic philosophy, maybe, is a way to put it? I see it a lot with d&d editions, where pre-3e, 3e, 4e, and 5e all sorta have different ideas of what you're using them for.

[Anonymouswizard]

Question for the "yes" crowd: Do you feel there is anything new systems have forgotten? Is it just a matter of it is not enough of a step up to worth learning new systems or do you feel something has been lost?

Or - as a third option - do you just like an old game despite it being bad? That's fine too. I'm not going to argue my favourite system is actually the best by any universal measure.

A bit of option A, a bit of option B, and a bit of option C.

There is something I think seems to have been forgotten, but forgetting it is nothing new. That thing is simplicity and lack of restriction, which is why I've grown to hate Feats/Edges/Perks/their brethren so much. This is somewhat related to the Air Breathing Mermaid problem, but it's more about how too many rules and moving parts, in my experience, leads to many groups ignoring the rules to have fun (which is fine, play it your way, but then why do you have so many rules?)

It's why my favourite 'modern' games are Fate (making up your own special abilities isn't encouraged, it's the norm) and Scum and Villainy (because it's so focused on archetypes I'm willing to forgive 'Stitches just won't be as good at political maneuvering'). It's also why the class powers in BD&D don't annoy me, there's few enough archetypes and the powers are phrased in such a way that only thief skills limit the options compared to the human norm (houserule time! base 5% chance for any character, 50% for Climb Walls).

While I was in university I had the time to dissect a system. Now I just want to sit down and run.

I'm not an old system guy, but from what I've heard people say I think it generally boils down to some combination of familiarity and... stylistic philosophy, maybe, is a way to put it? I see it a lot with d&d editions, where pre-3e, 3e, 4e, and 5e all sorta have different ideas of what you're using them for.

Yes, this is a lot of it. Although D&D has done a lot of shifting about between editions, including throwing out the baby with the bathwather with every post-2e edition*, completely changing how the game works and dropping many good ideas to pursue something new, so it's a somewhat special case.

* I don't like a lot of 4e. I do think that Healing Surges and Fort/Ref/Will defences instead of saving throws should have made it to 5e.

[2D8HP]

...to me 'Old School' basically means 0-2e D&Ð and BRP, as well as first edition Traveller, while 'New School' would be Apocalypse World and it's extended family, with almost everything else falling into 'the general body' of RPGs...

So old is rules that were published and established pre-1980's, "new" is PbtA, and everything else is "general"?

Seems as good a scheme as anything else, sure it could be the standard.

Yeah, but that's because you're old.

'tis a fair cop

TBH, I think the "older" and "newer" is always going to be highly subjective and, as you pointed out, age doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of design choices. I mean Palladium is a 40 year old system, but continues to put out books using what is functionally the same system as they ever did. Is "Dead Reign" a "new" game because it came out in 2008? Or is it an old game because it's using a version of a system that hasn't changed appreciably from 1987? Some "revolutions" in game design are just recognitions of earlier things that were happening.

My personal dividing point is "Does it use the innovations that Greg Stafford had in his Pendragon game from 1985 or his Prince Valiant game in 1989?", as Pendragon had mechanics that inspired Legend of the Five Rings and 7th Sea, while Prince Valiant was "rules light" that called itself a "Storytelling game" and used mechanics that Shadowrun (which was published about the same time as Prince Valiant), and later Vampire used, and to me those are all on the "new" side.

Question for the "yes" crowd: Do you feel there is anything new systems have forgotten?

In the case of D&D: Oe D&D, 1e AD&D, and B/X had slower healing, "gold for XP" and "morale" rules that made the gameplay what I characterized as "Less Murder more Hobo" compared to contemporary D&D, which I miss.

Is it just a matter of it is not enough of a step up to worth learning new systems or do you feel something has been lost?

In the case of D&D gameplay I definitely do feel something has been lost (but it doesn't take too much tweaking of 5e to put it back people!) otherwise (in my case) it's simply laziness, for example: in many ways GURPS sounds like a fine system (and I've enjoyed reading some of it's "Worldbooks"), and 7th Sea has what looks like a great setting, but studying new rules mechanics is a chore for me now, and I can just use Chaosium's old BRP rules (which I already know from Call of Cthullu, Ringworld, RuneQuest, and Stormbringer) easily enough for most settings, and it and TSR's D&D rules are just imprinted in my memory in ways that other rules aren't, I imagine that WotC's "d20" rules are much the same for a younger generation of gamers.

- as a third option - do you just like an old game despite it being bad? That's fine too. I'm not going to argue my favourite system is actually the best by any universal measure.

Sure, I remember that when my gaming circle switched to RuneQuest in the '80's it's rules just seemed more intuitive and make sense in ways D&D didn't, but I realized that while the rules didn't frustrate me the way D&D didn't, I also just wasn't having as much fun either.

I'm not an old system guy, but from what I've heard people say I think it generally boils down to some combination of familiarity and... stylistic philosophy, maybe, is a way to put it? I see it a lot with d&d editions, where pre-3e, 3e, 4e, and 5e all sorta have different ideas of what you're using them for.

That nails it.

[Faily]

Question for the "yes" crowd: Do you feel there is anything new systems have forgotten? Is it just a matter of it is not enough of a step up to worth learning new systems or do you feel something has been lost?

Or - as a third option - do you just like an old game despite it being bad? That's fine too. I'm not going to argue my favourite system is actually the best by any universal measure.

There are a few things I like and enjoy with older games compared to newer ones.

(all below is my opinion and based on my experiences)

I feel that older games often had more flavor to them, and felt like they focused more on fun and story elements than things always having to be fair and balanced. The "fair and balanced" often being a mentioned issue around D&D4e as it made everything just seem the same.

To me, newer games feel more forced in that everyone need to have an equal base to start on and need to be developed in the same way. Which is one of my big gripe with FFG's new version of the Legend of the Five Rings RPG: they took away the uniqueness of certain "classes" and forced everyone to develop their character in a similar way. Mystical rites and such was no longer the domain of priests and monks, but suddenly became available to other types as well. And in the previous editions, you could invest heavily in Advantages or focus on Skills and Traits. You could make a character with no Advantages or Disadvantages. Each starting character could be totally different not only in fluff but also mechanically. But with 5e, everyone had the same amounts of Advantages/Disadvantages as they are imposed upon you during creation. And to me that feels stifling and forcing everyone to be "the same". (L5R is an RPG I've enjoyed for for over 10 years, closer to 15 now I think? so it's something dear to me.)

And that's something I've noticed more in other games too. Not saying all games, but I feel there's become a trend of standardizing things more, making things more balanced, more contained, less wiggle-room for ideas and creativity for both players and GMs. Making things more balanced is not a bad thing in itself, but on the other side of the spectrum it also dulls the experience, imo.

So in closing, I guess I'd say; mechanics and game-balance is stronger and more on point in newer games, but in the process lose flavor and feeling of awe that used to be in older games.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That thing is simplicity and lack of restriction...It's why my favourite 'modern' games are Fate (making up your own special abilities isn't encouraged, it's the norm)

[shameless self-plug]You should check out STaRS, it's set up around those principles.[/shameless self-plug]