Why do we like older rule systems?

[gloriousbattle]

Why do we like older rule systems?

Just asking this as a kind of a fun psychological/sociological question. Nothing serious. I will probably also post it on some other fora.

Anyway, my favorite games, in addition to Classic Traveller, are OD&D (today as the LL clone) and Warhammer 40K, 1st ed. Each subsequent edition of each of these games I have enjoyed less and less, until I finally reverted to the originals.

So... Why?

Well, I thought about this, some, and realized that both of these two games have several features in common:

Positives

1. They had simpler rules than the later sets.

2. They required a lesser expense (fewer, cheaper rulebooks), than the later sets.

3. They were less commercialized than the later sets, though probably by default rather than by choice.

4. They were the games I cut my teeth on, and so maintain a certain charm with me for that reason.

Negatives

1. Often the rules were not as well ironed out as later editions (The original D&D rules were comprehensible, the original 40K rules had an absoultely unworkable point value system).

2. Fewer options were available. This is a very fair criticism in a way. If you want to run a fantasy campaign with a late 16th century South-Eastern Cambodian flavor, combined with an invasion of Heinlein's Starship Troopers Arachnids, you can probably find source books for it somewhere today.

3. Production values (especially of the OD&D rules) were, quite frankly, abysmal compared to what is out now.

So, in the end, why do I prefer the original games, when so many others prefer D&D edition 4.xxx? I really think it just comes down to what I first cut my teeth on, and first enjoyed. That one is a powerful motivator, and, in the end, probably has more to do with memories of sitting around with my friends on Saturday nights in my parent's attic as a 17 year old than it has to do with any of the other points listed above.

Is there any force greater than nostalgia?

 

[robject]

4. They were the games I cut my teeth on, and so maintain a certain charm with me for that reason.

I suspect that this is primary.

2. Fewer options were available.

...And will require add-on rules sooner or later. Thus our three LBBs turned into eight (though the 'huffman coding' is decent). Plus alien modules.

3. Production values (especially of the OD&D rules) were, quite frankly, abysmal compared to what is out now.

Meh, I don't care, tho others do.

Is there any force greater than nostalgia?

It's strong, no doubt about it.

 

[JustinInOz]

Because we are hidebound roleplaying archeaologists?

 

[BlackBat242]

For me... because by the time the "later editions" came out, I had already fixed what bugged me via "house-rules", and saw no reason to spend a wad of money that I didn't have to spare on new rule-books.

Then add that virtually every new edition made some rule changes that I detested (MT = changing the ship design rules to liters vs dtons, task resolution system, the entire assassination/rebellion/collapse scenario), AD&D2E (lets change almost everything just a tiny bit so that you have to have all the new books to get things right), etc.

Multiply this by 2x or more for the following "change for the sake of change" editions.

 

[Yavin_Prime]

As others have been stating it has a lot to do with when you came into the game. Players now may say that they like D&D4 because its what they started with while others may claim (like me) that AD&D was the best because thats when we started.

However each eddition of a game seems to always have +'s and -'s. For instance combat in D&D4 (from what I've been told) is very solid and well balanced, its simplified and streamlined. However I've also read that the books don't give pointers or tables on how to use skills in conversations as much as they did in older edditions. With that I've been told by many 'older' players that they are giving up on D&D4 and moving to Pathfinder because Pathfinder has an old D&D feel.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people get comfortable with their rules. Why do some people in the video game world still play games like Ultima Online that are 2D and obviously outdated with modern tech? The same things apply there, its familiar and they're used to it.

Often when I play a new eddition of a game I feel as though its a totaly new game with the feel of the old one, and lets face it not everyone is ready to put their favorite game down to start a 'new' one even if its been made by the same people.

 

[shadowcat20]

Things were simpler in the old days.

Look at the early Modules for DnD or the LBB double adventures. You took a few ideas and ran with them. Nowdays everything has to be explained in nuts and bolts and justified.

It was also about the game then. The little companies were running a labor of love. Nowadays Hasbro owns almost everything and it is all about profit. 3rd quarter sales down? Release another version of the rules. A line of Mini's not selling? Change the point values so they are killer now. The only balance in some companies product lines are the bottom line.

Of course I was 30 years younger, 60 pounds lighter, and felt better so that could also be why I have such fond memories of those days....

 

[Traveller]

The reason the two games for me are better than their later relations can be broken down as follows:

1. Fewer rules, allowing more options without breaking the game. A constant problem with games as they age is rules creep, or the acquisition of more and more rules that only serve to support the setting. This is of course a matter of taste as there are people who desire a fully fleshed out setting. But the best setting is NO setting, or more accurately the barest framework to make your own setting.

2. Setting framework. The best games in my mind do not exhaustively define every aspect of their universes in the core rules but leave them to the referee to change. Classic Traveller and OD&D to me really shine because they leave everything but the basic assumptions of the setting to the referee. By having only the basic setting assumptions and little else, referees are allowed to make their own universe by using their imagination. In this regard, this is where all subsequent editions of Traveller up to MgT fail. They define too much. I also believe that the inclusion of a default setting allows for laziness. The presence or lack of a setting is of course a matter of taste, but settings should be left for supplementary materials and not included in the core rules.

 

[aramis]

The only thing I find superior in older games is the unfettered enthusiasm...

Generally most pre-1982 games lack unified mechanics. (I generally find unified mechanics a must-have.) Classic Traveller was not the exception.

Also, most of the early stuff was poorly worded, poorly laid out. Traveller is an exception, here... as is much of the GDW line-up.

Even the best graphic design for games of that era was bland; most was mildly ugly, and the rest repulsively bad. GDW and TSR were among the best; FGU's look was not much better. And yet, I still like Jeff Dee and Liz Danforth art... 5th Ed T&T was the oldest truly good looking layout I can think of, and just riddled with well placed Danforth art; CT and D&D was utilitarian layout, with good art, but simply bland visual overall.

Things were simpler in the old days.

Look at the early Modules for DnD or the LBB double adventures. You took a few ideas and ran with them. Nowdays everything has to be explained in nuts and bolts and justified.

Shadowcat: you're wrong, there. Quite a few more modern games are as schematic as the early stuff, and some of the worst are circa 1980

Some new ones are remarkably good, too... Mouse Guard, Barbarians of Lemuria, Brute Squad, Chronica Feudalis... each takes a unified mechanic approach, and less-is-more design ethic.

Diaspora, by VSCA, is equally as schematic, but far less cryptic about it, as most old school games. Very precise, very pretty, very full of nifty ideas... and very modern production quality. Build your setting is session 1. And a good number of examples in the full version. (The SRD is JUST the rules, no examples nor explanation).

And some of the most complex, pin the details down, rules-for-everything, detail for the sake of detail games were written circa-1980... Like Knights and Berserkers and Legerdemain, Rolemaster, and Space Opera.

And then the schizophrenic games... Like Arduin... Some of those in every decade... Dark Realms in the 90's, Dreams in the 80's. I've not found the 2000's one.... but I've not been looking.

And some of the oldest are still around... D&D in a new incarnation, and also in half a dozen retroclones. Tunnels and Trolls in 3 editions (5.5, M6, and 7.5) at once, and 5.5 is pretty much a nice presentation of 1E with an extra die per weapon. Space Opera and Starships and Spacemen redone in PDF. Traveller in a new edition, plus PDF of ALL the old stuff. Almost all the old catalog from FGU in either PDF or reprint.

Much of the Old holds up 90% on nostalgia... as the number of D&D pseudoclones shows... "It's like D&D but with the rules making sense"... Typically, ascending AC, and some unified mechanic.

 

[snapshotbygdw]

They took more effort to acquire!

I know the exact quirk that's kept me chugging away at CT for over 30 years: it's the effort it took to acquire it. Growing up in a small Market town in rural England I was miles away from any games shop, my first contact with traveller came when an older member of my tabletop wargaming group showed me his copy ( I was only 13 in 1977) I was really hooked! The problem was how to aquire my own set? Mail order required a parental cheque or postal order as my mother frowned on cod! So most books and accessories where purchased as a result of a quest. I had relatives in Liverpool so every time we visited my poor dad would have to promise to take me to that holy of holies: Games Workshop Liverpool. The prerequisite for any day trip back then was searching White Dwarf and Dragon for games shops in towns on the way or at our destination!

The once a year wargaming show we held at the local corn exchange was a more exciting event for me than Christmas I would check and recheck my building society book planning how best to spend the balance back down to zero and can still remember spending hours pestering traders with questions about new releases . I bought LBB's, series 120 games, 15mm citadel figures, judges guild the works but it took me over five years and not because of the cost but because of geography and lack of information: everything was word of mouth marketing was non-existent, I know my parents worried about me, my father even had a punch-up with a games shop owner in Swindon cause he felt the guy was robbing me over the price of AHL!

 

[Putraack]

"Because I'm not done playing them yet," is my short answer. I have stacks of modules and outline scribbles to do, why do I want more games?

I'm sort of an interloper here, as CT is one of the old games I haven't played at all, but other GDW games are, especially their wargames. I'm a huge fan of the Europa series, and I prefer to go back to those over and over again, rather than sink (a lot of) money into completely new wargames that may or may not cover the same scope.

 

[mbrinkhues]

With many games (Cyberpunk 2020 vs V3, Shadowrun 1/2 vs 3, DnD vs DnD 3.x) I actually DON'T like the older rules (rules != setting). The new sets are better, more useful etc.

Traveller is one of the few exceptions (Deadlands vs. Savage DL is another) from this. My prefered systems are Mega and TNE. And there the preference is simple:

These two older systems are IMHO better than the new one. They offer more detail (MT construction rules), unified construction systems (MT) or more control (TNE chargen) and generally feel more "sturdy, tested", partially due to a longer period of "ripening" with errata and a solid support from two magazins (Challenge, Digest) in case of Mega and TNE/Twilight V2.2.

OTOH I would not touch CT or T4 with a 10ft pole, choosing between MGT and T20 will result in MGT winning (not the biggest D20 fan) and GT is "for special groups and scenarios only" (But for those better than any of the above)

 

[Jeffr0]

Right now I am using GURPS 4e to run a game. Pistol shootouts, character social interaction, long range rifle shoot outs, and brawling/martial-arts just all plain works. The numbers on the charcter sheet all mean something straight-forward and the design system for them is balanced and the stuff written under any particular skill is often subtly useful.

Nevertheless...

For games about little metal things shooting each other, I really love to play the old games. Ogre, Star Fleet Battles, CAR WARS, G.E.V.

GURPS does not attempt to address "real" gaming at all and any attempt to adapt "real" games to GURPS is awful-- it's not meant to be.

In my game, I will be creating strange new worlds and exploring new civilizations. Book 3, the Patrons Supplement, Alien Module 1, and Mercenary/Scouts/HighGuard will all come in handy for actually making worlds and creatures for my GURPS game. GURPS is a tool kit for making whatever you want-- but you have to know what you want first. Classic Traveller gives you an entire universe without forcing you to understand it. You don't have to know what you want... but the referee can use the rules to explore new places and meet new people without having to create everything from scratch.

Also, Striker is so full of awesome it hurts. What an epic game.

 

[Dragoner]

One of the most important reasons for using the old rules is accessibility, right now I'm playing an online game that is a combination of CT/Snapshot. We all know and are comfortable with the rules, different versions it would seem less likely that people would have the rules. I just bought four disks of CT, Apochrypha and JTAS, plus T5. T5 looks pretty cool, but who plays it?

 

[bromdenlong]

"Because I'm not done playing them yet," is my short answer. I have stacks of modules and outline scribbles to do, why do I want more games?

This is my primary reason. Virus didn't appeal to me either..

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

In the beginning, I had only the Traveller Book, LBBs were only a legend, and I had never even seen a full sector map. Thus, the enitre universe was mine!

So what if some of the things I came up with were later superceded by canon? My Ancients were the "Gentle Giants of Ganymede", and were about as concerned for modern human affairs as a Beverly Hills socialite might be in the affairs of the people of Outer Mongolia. Most of my first games were based on this "Giants" series, with a few Asimovian robots thrown in.

My point is that the 'Framework' aspect is ideal for those of us who like to expand, adapt, and improvise from our favorite literature - or not, if we so choose.

 

[pendragonman]

I must confess that upon initial investigation of most successor editions of the games I play, I had as much enthusiasm for those editions as those for whom the new edition was their first. It is normally upon deep examination that I found enough fault with the newer brighter idea that returned me to the first.

There is an exception that proves this rule, and that was TNE.

As to D&D stuff, as long as Gygax was the guiding hand I didn't really have any issues with the changes; he was just trying to purify his original ruleset. There was a problem with his business model, however, and that is once someone in your game group had a full set of the rulebooks your group didn't really need to buy more. Many folks just bought their favorite extra book (the complete Paladin's Handbook for example). When WOTC/HASBRO took over, their first idea was a complete overhaul of the game mechanic, making the resulting game more of a computer game with out the computer, and that killed it for me, so I went back to 1st edition AD&D.

Now, for those of your who like 1st edition, you should look long and hard at Troll Lord Games Castles and Crusades. Created by some of the minds that originally helped Gygax and is very close to 1st edition.

 

[Evil Steve]

For me, it depends on the game. At what edition did the rules go from improving to overcomplicating. Traveller got it right the first time. It made combat scary and lethal, which I wanted in a game. For D&D, it was 3.0, Rolemaster it was second edition, with Companion IV.

I want a rules set that that either reflects its canon world, or fills a niche in my library.

Also, most older games were experimenting with new ideas, many were crap, others were good. Most had one or two good ideas at their core, but were utter failures beyond said core. Its those good ideas that give me a nerdly rush of adreniline.

 

[Traveller]

Now, for those of your who like 1st edition, you should look long and hard at Troll Lord Games Castles and Crusades. Created by some of the minds that originally helped Gygax and is very close to 1st edition.

I disagree about TNE being the exception proving the rule. TNE had quite a bit that was messed up with it regarding its setting assumptions, which proved to be inconsistent with what had come before and what came after. Then of course there was the issue of characters without combat armor or better being able to take so much damage that they could survive a direct hit from a PGMP or FGMP.

In the case of TSR, or any role playing game company for that matter, the money isn't to be made in the core rules but the supplements and adventures. If Gary had a fault businesswise, it was in trusting the Blumes to run the company in a sensible manner, which they didn't. From what I recall Gary and others mentioning about those days, Gary was pitching the D&D cartoon in California while TSR was racking up millions of dollars in debt by purchasing non-essentials such as company cars, desks, and the like. When Gary found out, he returned to Lake Geneva and put together Unearthed Arcana. UA saved the company, but much within it was positively broken (i.e. not playtested).

After Gary's ouster from TSR, the Witch, aka the PoG (Person ousting Gary) swore to show gamers that she was superior to them. While she had some initial success, eventually she had so much product printed, much of it of subpar quality, that it eventually was unsellable. TSR failed because of "...a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy."

I'm drastically oversimplifying the situation at TSR. The full details are out on the Internet for all to see, along with commentary on various forums by Frank Mentzer, Rob Kuntz, Tim Kask, and others. I had a small part to play in bringing Castles & Crusades to life, as one of the errata team.

 

[aramis]

Now, for those of your who like 1st edition, you should look long and hard at Troll Lord Games Castles and Crusades. Created by some of the minds that originally helped Gygax and is very close to 1st edition.

Mechanically almost unrelated. Same class names, same general roles within a party, but not the same game. Many think it better than 1E. It's a pseudoclone, not a retroclone... IMO, it works better than AD&D1E, but then, my opinion of 1E is "unfettered enthusiasm and poor rules"... so I'd naturally find it an improvement.

• If you truly like AD&D1E, you go OSRIC.
• If you are a fan of Cyclopedia D&D, Dark Dungeons is as close as it gets.
• If you like whitebox without the supplements, look at Swords & Wizardry whitebox.
• If you want AD&D2E, look at Myth & Magic
• If you like being able to use 1E adventures as is, but one a more streamlined ruleset pick one of the pseudoclones
  • Castles & Crusades
  • Swords and Wizardy
  • Spellcraft and Swordplay
  • Delvers of the unknown
• If you prefer T&T, it's still in print.
• Rolemaster is still in print, too.
• Starships and Spacemen is back in print
• For just general Old-School style rules... pseudoclones part 2
  • Labyrinth Lord & Mutant Future
  • Forward To Adventure
  • Barbarians of Lemuria
  • Mazes and Minotaurs
  • Lamentations of the Fire Princess

Lots of choices. I missed a bunch of the pseudoclones. Most people want to somehow rationalize D&D, and lots of approaches are cropping up. Most are free PDFs with the art missing; some are paid PDF; almost all are OGL; Almost all of them have Print-On-Demand dead-tree versions available, often in choice of hardback, softback, and spiral bound.

I've run several (I run T&T, Mazes and Minotaurs, and Starships and Spacemen.). I don't enjoy the clunky rules, but those three give me Old School without all the clunkiness... Ok, S&S is clunky, but in cool ways. Then again, I've run Car Wars as an RPG, and people keep saying that's impossible, too.

The Old School crowd is loud. Disproportionately so. I'm not part of it, despite running some old school stuff.

 

[Traveller]

The Old School crowd is loud.

Just as loud as Traveller canonhawks, and they don't play their games either. Just worship them as holy writ.