I’ll go ahead to say that rules tend to be more consistent and presented in a clearer manner.

I hold consistency to generally be a good thing in that if there are rules to cover a number of situations, it would be better if those rules followed the same base logic. Some people disagree. James Maliszewski of Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/), for example, IIRC.

I also think this addresses the theory at hand; in that how much of this revival is not actually a pining for the rulesystem itself but actually for the type of game that it created?

BTW, I also number in the ranks of those who feel no need to play D&D right now at all. I view my old games with the same nostalgia I view other earlier parts of my life, but my major issues of the game have always stayed around. It’s a combat system with a few peripheral rules around to allow for a more complete game, and that has only gotten worse in the latest editions.

I suppose it all comes down to what you consider “improvement” to be. To me, 3.x was far improved over AD&D (and 3.5 was certainly better than 3.0, but let’s call that fixing mistakes and not really a new edition). Of course, that’s all after the fact. I don’t think anyone playing AD&D pre-3.x thought “Boy, when a new edition comes out, that’s gunna rock.” In retrospect, I think 3.x is better than AD&D but I was a huge AD&D fan when that was the latest version.

It’s certainly true that new annoyances are created with new editions, or that new editions can sometimes head in directions we, as individuals, didn’t really want to see. I’ve actually gotten to the point where I’m just plain ol’ tired of D&D. I was hoping for a different kind of change in 4e from 3.x and got… well, 4e, which in some ways exceeded my hopes (in simplification and ease of DM’ing crunch) but also fell horribly short. Gone was customization and the real idea of classes. Now it’s all about your role, and the focus is primarily on combat role and ability. Good intro system but really lacking in options.

Hmm… is this making any sense? Perhaps it’s just a matter of agreeing to disagree. I simply feel no nostalgic impulse to return to older game editions. None in the slightest.

I think a good general rule is that new editions tend to do away with the annoyances from their predecessor, but in doing so, they are creating new annoyances. This is a far cry from (say) the auto industry where cars are far more powerful, efficient, reliable, and less expensive than previous ‘versions’. (The 2009 Mazdaspeed 3 has far more horsepower than Magnum PI’s Ferrari 308.)

For instance (IMHO) 3E took a very structured and consistent approach to the game (monsters leveling like PCs, using the same spells and effects, CRs, standardized DCs, etc). This replaced 2E’s “crazy quilt” of patchwork subsystems which was one of the bigger complaints about the system. But it also created its own problems with game prep, character optimization, and a focus on tactical efficiency over roleplay and imagination.

Another way to look at it: The mere existence of OSRIC and C&C seems to indicate that there is demand for the “old school” gaming experience, although I readily admit that they are cleaned up a bit.

Even better, I found a product which was still being published with most of what I loved on the old system, but with even more good stuff as well.

Now, I can appreciate the newer games, but they just weren’t my thing… but that could be because of where I started.

It’s definitely not an objective ruling. It’s my opinion. If we’re talking about fun, then any edition can be fun. However, if we’re talking about rules, I feel that it’s hard to argue that newer editions of most games haven’t improved older editions. Other than D&D 4e which really changed the direction D&D was headed, I can’t think of a system that hasn’t been improved (and thus made better). That’s not to say that a particularly awesome frame of mind (or nostalgia) doesn’t make those games better. Some people like to play older editions and remember how it felt to play for the first time. That’s different than saying the older edition is the same as newer ones. It’s the mindset we’re talking about at that point, not the game.

Please note that this is not the same as saying “You all playing Shadowrun 2e are playing an inferior game to Shadowrun 4e.” It depends what you want out of it, but when it comes to rules clarity and fluidity, newer editions tend to enhance the system over older editions. That’s just the nature of how things change over time.

The philosophy is different, and it’s something I would like to try.

I read something over at Grognard, that put much of the blame on the Thief.

As soon as the Thief showed up with his fancy list of “skills” it all went down hill. Soon the diabolical problem of separating successful Intent vs. successful Task got clouded by lists and lists of skills, which spawned complex rules and well…. not to tempt anyone into analyzing the fun out of anything…

Telas, have you had a chance to look over Vincent’s new rules? I’d enjoy hearing your opinion of them.

Between systems, I’m a lot less confident. In many ways PTA is more minimalist than 0e– is that evolution, the circle squared, or what? I appreciate the older games, but think Patrick’s right when he notes that, like classic cares, you appreciate them for entirely different reasons than your daily driver.

They are more suitable for some styles. Old ones are more suitable to other styles.

Rafe; By what measure do you declare newer editions better than older ones? Are the measures you use the only possible ones or the only correct ones?

Recently I have had the pleasure of introducing my own children to the RPG hobby and I started with a very streamlined tailored version of 3e that looks a whole lot more like 0e or early 1e. It was a blast. I took those lessons I have learned over the centuries since the 70′s and the myriad systems I have played and applied them to something close to 1e.

It was a blast. I laid out some basic rules to the players — kept things very free form and remembered rule 0 (Never say no to the players).

Good times.

Conversely this is not really something I could have done with many experienced 3e or 4e groups. “Advanced” players want a consistent and predictable rule system where they know the rules as well as the GM and can use (take advantage) of them. Which is one of the reasons I think most modern game systems aren’t as much fun to GM or play (I’m looking mostly at 3e and 4e D&D here). (In many cases) They (games/players) have become all about optimizing the results and crunching the numbers. It isn’t as much fun as it used to be.

I like the changes that have been made to standardize things and make the rule systems coherent and internally consistent — but I don’t like that many of them seem to have taken the magic out of the experience.

CJ

But they are still fun to drive!

Shameless Plug: Everyone go and join http://www.youmeetinatavern.com right now because it will increase your gaming karma by a bazillion kurklestiens (the official measurement of cosmic forces). This has nothing to do with my being the admin of the site.

Ultimately, a GM and players will make their own of any game system. I think there is great value is experimenting with other systems and older editions, and attempting to engage the game from a different angle (or perhaps an angle you forgot about over time.)

Shameless plug (but related): Check out my post on recently running basic D&D for a bunch of “new school” guys: http://mediocretales.com/?p=20

http://microlite20.net/

The fact that it’s just so customizable as well makes it well suited to so many different applications.

Generally, yes. If we look at only D&D, AD&D was waaay better than 1st Edition. 3.x was better than AD&D. The point of contention is whether or not 4e is better than 3.5. Some say yes, some say no. There are things I love about 4e (especially on the DM’ing side of things) and things I’m quite “meh” about.

WoD and Shadowrun are other good examples of positive evolution, as is Burning Wheel (from what I’ve heard).

I don’t disagree that games tend reflect where we feel they need to go. Often, this is a matter of the developers and players both feeling like a new edition should be in the works. That said, I side strongly with the “positive evolution of editions” position.