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

[Anonymouswizard]

Fiction/Setting is one of those things that seem to be coming back with newer games. Actually a lot of features of old games, like rules-weight and the wiliness to leave things to the table to decide, seem to be coming back. Often (I feel, having not played a lot of different systems) with a bit more purpose. Some old games seemed to just have the first rules they thought of, newer ones (the good ones at least) seem to have learned a bit more about the rules we actually need and reduced it to that.

The thing is, I find a lot of new games the try to be 'old game++' strictly inferior. Like, I find that 5e has too much stuff in it.

Another thing I'm seeing a lot of newer games missing that I like in older games is modularity, where the game is designed to work with or without various systems. For example, in BD&D (Rules Cyclopaedia, of course) not only are skills and detailed weapon training explicitly GM-dependent, so are the Druid and Mystic classes, technically Paladins and Avengers, and even the entire domain management aspect.

[2D8HP]

...I find that 5e has too much stuff in it....

As a player of 5e to me a big flaw of it is that there's no simple "training wheels class" equivalent to the "Champion" Fighter that's primarily a magician.

[Tvtyrant]

What I like most in RPGs is compartmentalized abilities on a simple framework. 5Es casters are perfect, 4E had a slightly wonky framework but their power system was great. Old school systems run the opposite direction of my own interests; if it were up to me a character sheet would be basically nothing but a pile of power flashcards.

The reason for this is simple; it makes is easier for players to make decisions. Having had lots of players who struggled to put together a character in 3.5 or 4E, then struggled to decide what to do in combat, having the ability to make a character however they want without mechanical consequences and then just grab self-contained powers is easy for players to grasp and makes running the game easier. It also made combat a lot more dynamic, utility powers especially allowed for a lot of off turn actions without adding a ton of needless complexity.

[Anonymouswizard]

As a player of 5e to me a big flaw of it is that there's no simple "training wheels class" equivalent to the "Champion" Fighter that's primarily a magician.

Like the BD&D Cleric? Begin with an activated power that's spammable and decent combat skills, get a single spell pet day at second level, and have a list consisting mainly of buffs and reactionary spells?

Because the 5e Cleric is just wrong. Aragorn the Cleric wouldn't stand for these 'spiritual weapon' thingies, he just needs his mace.

[MeeposFire]

As a player of 5e to me a big flaw of it is that there's no simple "training wheels class" equivalent to the "Champion" Fighter that's primarily a magician.

Hmm the last time I really got a feeling for that in D&D was in 4e with the elementalist sorcerer. It was a sorcerer that had only at will attacks (think cantrips in 5e) with encounter based boosts you could apply to those at will powers with no daily powers so it was much like the knight and slayer type fighters (those that did not get daily powers). Simple and straightforward.


As for the older cleric I always liked the basic concept but I never liked how it worked out in older D&D. Healing spells were a chore (and I like healing people) and natural healing was a joke. I will take a 4e or 5e cleric over a standard cleric from back in the day. I always liked the idea of the cleric from back then but I have been finding going back that the limits of what the class can do back then really holds back my enjoyment. I like the system it is in but I would to bring in some concepts from later games to update the class and that would be enjoyable.

[Friv]

As a player of 5e to me a big flaw of it is that there's no simple "training wheels class" equivalent to the "Champion" Fighter that's primarily a magician.

I think 5e expected that the Warlock would be the training wheels class for casters - at first level, you get a pair of cantrips and one spell per encounter out of a list of four, two of which are picked for you. It's still a lot more complex than the Champion, but I could image a Warlock Patron who made choice selection easier and whose powers made blasting better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

As a player of 5e to me a big flaw of it is that there's no simple "training wheels class" equivalent to the "Champion" Fighter that's primarily a magician.

Challenge accepted.

What sort of "training wheels" do you think would fit a caster? Spell slots but a small pre-determined list of spells known? A handful of at-will magic effects? An Eldritch Blast style at-will magic attack with a handful of spells to back it up?

[2D8HP]

Challenge accepted.

What sort of "training wheels" do you think would fit a caster? Spell slots but a small pre-determined list of spells known? A handful of at-will magic effects? An Eldritch Blast style at-will magic attack with a handful of spells to back it up?

No more than three abilities/things to keep track of, if that ability requires thinking about "when will the next rest be?" it course as 1.5 to 2 abilities/things.

The Firebolt Cantrip counts as one, a first level spell counts as one and a half.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No more than three abilities/things to keep track of, if that ability requires thinking about "when will the next rest be?" it course as 1.5 to 2 abilities/things.

The Firebolt Cantrip counts as one, a first level spell counts as one and a half.

...actually, before I work on a base class, have you looked at my Balefire Knight? It's a fighter subclass that replaces attacks with blasts of fire (or another element), and staples some minor elemental effects onto Action Surge and Second Wind. That might be exactly what you want.

[2D8HP]

...actually, before I work on a base class, have you looked at my Balefire Knight? It's a fighter subclass that replaces attacks with blasts of fire (or another element), and staples some minor elemental effects onto Action Surge and Second Wind. That might be exactly what you want.

Looks nice!

Still what I think 5e lacks is a simple magic flavored option at first level (which admittedly may be achieved with the Magic Initiate Feat or a racial cantrip, but something more obvious than those).

[Max_Killjoy]

In general the more I look into systems the less I find myself that enthused about any existing system.

If I had to pick one system, it would still be HERO 5th edition.

But even there, I keep bumping up against its limitations for non-superheroic material. The scale is too compressed, and the segment-phase action system might be better replaced with an "action point" system of some kind. And defenses are often too passive (see, DCV and only the attacker rolling most of the time).

WEG d6 has its appeal, but the more I look at dice pool systems the less I care for them. See also, despite its warts, oWoD.

[The Library DM]

This will take a bit!
I started in ‘79 with the Blue Book edition (with chits!*), DMing (and playing) B1. (Yes, I ran a character while also being the DM. And yes, I was fair, because my character(s) died in the first, second and third encounter.** (Each time the character died, a brother or cousin would run down the dungeon hallway to join the group.)
I progressed (as we thought) very quickly to AD&D, and also took up Traveller (we were amazed that it had no “levels,” and liked the skills).

In college I discovered the Mentzer Basic sets, and discovered I liked its simpler structure over AD&D (especially with the rise of 2e, which I thought was over complicating things).

I thought 3e and 3.5e looked like a mess designed for “power gamers” as opposed to the “purity” of my beloved older versions, so I never picked up or played either. (I’m not saying I was correct or proud of these attitudes, just that I held them.)
I read 4e, and dismissed it as an attempt to make D&D “compete” with console RPGs. (Again, not proud, maybe not correct, but that was the “feel” it gave me.)

I did wind up purchasing and using 5e, in part because I now lead an “Intro to D&D” program for teens at my library. I appreciate the somewhat more intuitive combat system (just roll and compare to AC, no need for charts), and I can see that there is a clear emphasis on creating a character as a personality and not just a course of action (as it were). Both are helpful when introducing teens to the game.

I also see the appeal (especially for younger players) of being able to break out of the classic high fantasy classes and races and create something wild like a halfling sorcerer or a half-demon paladin. Kids have a lot of imagination, and love that sort of thing. Me, I prefer the old restrictions (halflings and dwarves can’t cast spells, etc.), and that’s what I would play with adults.

However, while the kids clearly love the various “special” abilities they gain at different levels, those leave my Old School self muttering “back in my day all we got were some hitpoints and maybe a few spells, and we liked it!” And I do think that the constant additions of specials and feats or whathaveye actually weaken role-playing rather than encourage it, veering away from the personality emphasis the background stuff intends to create. But then, I’m watching the teens having a great time, and they’re clearly making their characters personalities rather than stat-blocks, so maybe my Old School doppelgänger needs to shut up.

I’m not fond of the “spell slots” or the attack cantrips. The former are, I think, needless confusing (and video-gamey), while the latter to me don’t “feel right” for magic-users— deadly power should take more effort to create. I prefer a homebrew mod of the original Vancian approach that allows memorized spells to be retained in memory, with a chance to forget them upon each casting. But I play BtB with the teens, as when they’re done with my program, slots will be the system they’ll encounter with others.

And I definitely DON’T like the “catch all” skills and skill checks. No, I *don’t* think that a fighter has any chance of picking a lock, no matter how dextrous his fingers are, because lock-picking is a learned skill which requires practice. And why the heck are you rolling Investigation checks and Insight checks for the puzzle/trap/encounter I just described to you? I’m not going to tell you what the clue means just because you rolled a die! Figure it out! But I admit that these situations can be handled by DM discretion, even with the rolls.

So, which do I like better? Well, my heart belongs to my first love— the Old School D&D of my youth. But my head leans slightly towards the new. But only slightly.

*Cue 15-16 year old boys’ concepts of humor.
**But the fourth PC stayed up!

[Willie the Duck]

In general the more I look into systems the less I find myself that enthused about any existing system.

If I had to pick one system, it would still be HERO 5th edition.

But even there, I keep bumping up against its limitations for non-superheroic material. The scale is too compressed, and the segment-phase action system might be better replaced with an "action point" system of some kind. And defenses are often too passive (see, DCV and only the attacker rolling most of the time).

WEG d6 has its appeal, but the more I look at dice pool systems the less I care for them. See also, despite its warts, oWoD.

I don't pretend to know you as anything more than a name attached to posts, but from various threads all over this board, it seems like you're not particularly enthused overall these days. I don't know that a given system can clear that hurdle. However, I tend to agree with some of these critiques -- Dice pools make calculating success chances harder and don't necessarily add anything; the Hero System Speed function is a complication that looks like it might address other games' turn/initiative system, but doesn't really change it. The RQ system's action points is, frankly, the best part of it and really does address the 'everyone takes their turn and freezes while the next person acts' issue; I guess I don't see 'who rolls' as defining whether something is active or passive. It's a 3D6 roll with both attacked OCV and defender DCV contributing to the success chance either way (and the trigger rider on powers can give Hero System-built characters a lot of 'if targeted with an X attack, then Y defense happens'-type non-passivity). GURPS 3e had attacker roll to-hit and defender roll Dodge/Parry/Block checks, that might be more up your alley (although then it is mostly just two set scores and a double-3D6 rolls between them, so by my own definitions, it is fairly passive). Not sure where I'm going with this, just food for thought.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't pretend to know you as anything more than a name attached to posts, but from various threads all over this board, it seems like you're not particularly enthused overall these days. I don't know that a given system can clear that hurdle.

Between the fact that my brain seems hardwired to pick out problems and incongruities and disconnects, and disappointment fatigue at this point, it's very hard to get enthused about much.

However, I tend to agree with some of these critiques -- Dice pools make calculating success chances harder and don't necessarily add anything; the Hero System Speed function is a complication that looks like it might address other games' turn/initiative system, but doesn't really change it. The RQ system's action points is, frankly, the best part of it and really does address the 'everyone takes their turn and freezes while the next person acts' issue; I guess I don't see 'who rolls' as defining whether something is active or passive. It's a 3D6 roll with both attacked OCV and defender DCV contributing to the success chance either way (and the trigger rider on powers can give Hero System-built characters a lot of 'if targeted with an X attack, then Y defense happens'-type non-passivity). GURPS 3e had attacker roll to-hit and defender roll Dodge/Parry/Block checks, that might be more up your alley (although then it is mostly just two set scores and a double-3D6 rolls between them, so by my own definitions, it is fairly passive). Not sure where I'm going with this, just food for thought.

One of the settings I need a system for, the "4th BCE / Greco-Sumerian" thing, I really want the feel of the combatants both doing things, attacking and defending, blow by blow, with fluidity.

[Willie the Duck]

One of the settings I need a system for, the "4th BCE / Greco-Sumerian" thing, I really want the feel of the combatants both doing things, attacking and defending, blow by blow, with fluidity.

See if you can find a cheap/borrowable GURPS 3e basic set. It has attack rolls vs defense rolls. Not everyone's cup of tea, but it seems to do what you're asking for here.

[LibraryOgre]

One of the settings I need a system for, the "4th BCE / Greco-Sumerian" thing, I really want the feel of the combatants both doing things, attacking and defending, blow by blow, with fluidity.

Hackmaster. Basic is free, and it does that. There's even calculus involved in longer v. shorter v. faster weapon, shield v. no shield v. two-weapon.

[MaxWilson]

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

...It depends. Some of the new ones (DramaSystem, Microscope/Union if those count as an RPGs) are quite interesting and would influence my DMing style if I ran an old one like AD&D. And I think even the newest D&D (5E) has a lot of potential as a tactical combat minigame or CRPG, even though I dislike it as an RPG.

But I like TSR-era (A)D&D better than WotC-era D&D, and I like GURPS 3E better than 4E, so yes, I sometimes like the old ones better.

However, that leads into a further point. There are a lot of things that have been tried with TTRPGs, be it generic universal (multi-genre) rule systems, character creation minigame (Max, if you find this thread, do not flip your lid),

No worries.

[Willie the Duck]

No worries.

Ha! Other Max, and he didn't.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ha! Other Max, and he didn't.

My objection is complicated and unrelated to the thread topic, so I refrained.

On topic. My problems with a lot of newer systems.

The elevation of simplicity to an overriding goal for its own sake rather than a matter of efficiency.

Concern with novelty of design, new mechanics for the sake of being different rather than solving a design challenge.

The various "story level" mechanics tied to characters. Egregious example would be the FFG Star Wars system with such gems as the power that lets the player decide that some device or system fails -- not because the character did anything, but just because the player wants it. And the player gets to retcon a cause into past events and impose say a failure of maintenance on some NPC.

[Anonymouswizard]

The elevation of simplicity to an overriding goal for its own sake rather than a matter of efficiency.

I'd agree. At this point I tend to consider rule diversity more important than rule weight. Having a lot of complex rules is fine, as long as they come back to the same core ideas, and a long book is fine as long as it's not 10% rules and 90% exceptions (which I have occasionally seen).

The various "story level" mechanics tied to characters. Egregious example would be the FFG Star Wars system with such gems as the power that lets the player decide that some device or system fails -- not because the character did anything, but just because the player wants it. And the player gets to retcon a cause into past events and impose say a failure of maintenance on some NPC.

Eh, I've found it comes down to the execution for me. I loathe the FFG Star Wars games for several reasons, and that's one of them (as were the 'flipping' force points), but at the same time I like how Fate uses Invocations and Compels to more naturally create highs and lows.

I also find that the more the game lives at the 'story level' the less problematic the mechanics are. If they feel bolted on it's fine, but if a failed Resources roll means your vampire hunter left the garlic and stakes behind while venturing to the Bloody Castle of Blood then retconning a failure of maintenance on a PC feels a lot better.

[1337 b4k4]

One of the settings I need a system for, the "4th BCE / Greco-Sumerian" thing, I really want the feel of the combatants both doing things, attacking and defending, blow by blow, with fluidity.

As suggested, have you looked at GURPS for this at all? From what I can tell about what you want from a system GURPS is about the closest I can think of that fits. I'm curious if you've found it doesn't work for you, what made that so?

[Max_Killjoy]

As suggested, have you looked at GURPS for this at all? From what I can tell about what you want from a system GURPS is about the closest I can think of that fits. I'm curious if you've found it doesn't work for you, what made that so?

I bought a copy with the intention of reading through the system a while ago, but it's buried somewhere in my collection of "bought this, haven't read it yet" books.

E: found it, I actually shelved it with my other gaming books... how silly of me.

[Cluedrew]

I'd agree. At this point I tend to consider rule diversity more important than rule weight. Having a lot of complex rules is fine, as long as they come back to the same core ideas, and a long book is fine as long as it's not 10% rules and 90% exceptions (which I have occasionally seen).

Yeah, some say exception based design is great because you can learn the exceptions as you go. I think what they are talking about works better if it is merely content based. The difference being if the special cases contradict the general case or merely add on top of it. Creatures plugging their stats into calculations is content, a special rule saying that you must kill this monster twice for it to actually die is an exception. I'm not actually sure that is what you were talking about, now that I think about it.

I do like reducing weight as well. If you can accomplish the same thing with fewer rules you think it should. That being said there are a lot of games you just can't do with a one-page system.

Eh, I've found it comes down to the execution for me. [...] I also find that the more the game lives at the 'story level' the less problematic the mechanics are. If they feel bolted on it's fine, but if a failed Resources roll means your vampire hunter left the garlic and stakes behind while venturing to the Bloody Castle of Blood then retconning a failure of maintenance on a PC feels a lot better.

I also kind of the narrative end of things. I'm not hear just to win encounters and the other motivations for me don't contradict the idea of: let's just set the in-world events to be what we want. The narrative mechanics allow that, but not so regularly that the game becomes easy or predictable. Or at least the implementations I have enjoyed.

Oh and as for your reply to my last post: I agree but that wasn't quite what I was saying, I was speaking more abstractly about taking lessons from the old game and applying them. Or perhaps applying lessons from the middle aged games that attempted to stray from what the old games did. Its not really important but I thought I would add the note.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you mean what I think you mean by the term, then I don't think exception-based design is new or old... but I do think it's just bad.

"The rule is this, unless situation X, and then the rule is that, except when also Y, in which case it's either this or that depending on GM fiat or phase of the moon."

"The rule is normally this, but to make this one spell out of seventy in the game work, we have to completely change how the rule for the thing in question works, but just for when that one spell has been cast".

"We forgot to include rules for crafting in the game, and now in this new splat to be centered on crafting, so instead of adding crafting rules to the game that integrate with everything else and giving the splat special bonuses and abilities that play off general crafting rules... we're going to make up a bunch of special crafting juju that doesn't tie into anything and are only available to this splat".

I hate that sort of game design. Especially when it's deliberate from the start. "No, no, our rules don't have to make sense together, each one is a self-contained unit that only applies when we say it applies."

[Telok]

If you mean what I think you mean by the term, then I don't think exception-based design is new or old... but I do think it's just bad...

...I hate that sort of game design. Especially when it's deliberate from the start. "No, no, our rules don't have to make sense together, each one is a self-contained unit that only applies when we say it applies."

I'm... more accepting... of that sort of thing if the game was essentially made by amatures who had to make up rules as they went along, or if it's covering essentially a whole subsystem of the game and is only one layer of exceptions deep.

So in the first D&Ds I accept that people ended up making weird rules for things that hadn't happened before and they don't really match other rules. It's still a flaw, but understandable that it happened and got published. What I dislike in newer systems about this is when the designers know that people want something and that it will come up, but they just throw down some half baked or incomplete rules and walk away. There may be a splat later, but you know it's going to be just add-ons and exceptions to the first round of garbage, and that there will be exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions.

Pazio's Starfinder space combat is a fairly extreme example of this sort of crud. I find the D&D 5e handling of ranger animal companions and riding mounts to be quite bad as well. For professional products that the designers know they need a good, integrated, set of rules for... I just find it unacceptable.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm... more accepting... of that sort of thing if the game was essentially made by amatures who had to make up rules as they went along, or if it's covering essentially a whole subsystem of the game and is only one layer of exceptions deep.

So in the first D&Ds I accept that people ended up making weird rules for things that hadn't happened before and they don't really match other rules. It's still a flaw, but understandable that it happened and got published. What I dislike in newer systems about this is when the designers know that people want something and that it will come up, but they just throw down some half baked or incomplete rules and walk away. There may be a splat later, but you know it's going to be just add-ons and exceptions to the first round of garbage, and that there will be exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions.

Pazio's Starfinder space combat is a fairly extreme example of this sort of crud. I find the D&D 5e handling of ranger animal companions and riding mounts to be quite bad as well. For professional products that the designers know they need a good, integrated, set of rules for... I just find it unacceptable.

A subset of this is when the game has different "scales" and they just don't interface well at all.

There's a game I really like for an IP that I adore, so I won't name names (not Starfinder), but it has space combat... and it has vehicle-scale combat... and it has personnel-scale combat... and that area where the three intersect is a total mess.

[Telok]

A subset of this is when the game has different "scales" and they just don't interface well at all.

There's a game I really like for an IP that I adore, so I won't name names (not Starfinder), but it has space combat... and it has vehicle-scale combat... and it has personnel-scale combat... and that area where the three intersect is a total mess.

I think the best solution I've seen for that is to have vehicles work at the people scale as essentially big people with slightly different move & internal damage rules, and spaceships are all humongeous and well beyond personal scale. Plus orbital bombardment rules, because players.

[LibraryOgre]

One newer trend that I really dislike is "builds"... characters who change significantly over the course of the game; not merely becoming more powerful or better at what they do, but their skills and functions changing radically as they level up (a trend I think is exemplified in 3.x).

Of course, there's also the flip side... character design where things do not meaningfully improve after 1st level (q.v. Palladium games, where the difference between a 1st level Juicer and a 10th level Juicer isn't much more than 9d6 HP).

[MeeposFire]

What I have grown to dislike is having to plan out builds. 3e D&D is the big offender in this where you really want to plan out your skills, feats, class abilities, etc so that you can later pick up the things you really want. If you want a certain prestige class (even a fluffy roleplaying one) you will need to make sure you pick up the certain skills, feats and abilities needed to pick up that class. That just gets so tiresome (and sadly for me in many cases the most fun thing in 3e is building characters rather than playing them as I find 3e to be less fun in actual play). Other versions you may have builds but the amount of work required is much different and you do not really have to plan them out ahead so much (though you can).

[FaerieGodfather]

I really hate to keep grinding this axe... but those are all functions of the 3.X multiclassing system. It's always been bad.

The ease of multiclassing makes it a much less definitive character decision, so you get class-dipping.

And because it's trivial to snag the first two levels in any given class, the iconic class features of every class have to be spread out further than most games run.

Prestige Classes replaced Kits... but you can't get into your "main class" until 6th level and then only if you planned your build from 1st. This often exacerbates both of the previous problems, robbing classes of any narrative identity and turning them into nothing more than components of the world's most deliberately obtuse point-buy system.