Quote from: Will;786183Time and experience sometimes shows that game 'clever ideas' don't work that well, or someone comes up with an even better idea to do things.

For example, one problem I had with a lot of early D&D editions was the roll D20 for this, %ile for that. There was no real... point to doing it that way, it was just that way because.

Formerly common sense: Don't arbitrarily assume you're "supposed to" roll this or that set of dice when there's no point to doing it that way!

Now writers need to anticipate every bizarre self-inflicted idiocy, or else they are to blame  for it. Hmmm... not an isolated phenomenon in the culture today, methinks.

Quote3e changing things to all use D20 + stuff? That was evolutionary, and, I maintain, better. The hodgepodge early systems are dated.

Now, earlier editions had flatter power curves, morale rules, GP = XP, and a bunch of other ideas. Some of these have proven really good ideas, still.


I think there's a middle ground. Some ideas just prove clunky over time and stuff improves/innovates. Some stuff is just taste and character -- complex rules vs. simple rules isn't an evolution or anything, just... different.


I think there are three components of aging:
Presentation. Poorly laid out printer stacks of rules? Yeah, as desktop publishing gets better... some older games lose their charm.

Rule structure. When something is new and untried, it has a fresh charm to it. Over years of experience, though? The weight of evidence can point to systems that suit certain goals better.

Innovation. Some ideas are just... new. I loved Torg possibility points. But later ideas, like Fate Aspects, grapple with these ideas in a more interesting and effective way.

Yeah, not all new things are better. Not all old things suck. But, you know, stuff changes.

The Palladium Role-Playing Game (revised) is not dated and aged- it's a timeless classic!:)

I can't think of a single rules set that insisted on percentile dice generally for no good reason. There was, however, a trend in The Arduin Grimoire and Advanced D&D to inject fine and irregular differences that seemed to me not worth the bother: a matter of style that was for its moment fashionable. At that time, it was RQ and such that could have been called "dated" for their 5% increments and simple formulas!

For most purposes, a 3d6 system might as well be a 1d10 system. Is it always for real interest in the outliers that the former is preferred?

Quote from: Phillip;786447The little black books of Traveller don't strike me as dated at all, from the rules set to the classic elegance of the book design.

It has been decades since I've seen them.  When I traded away my copies in the late 80s, I felt they were more than a bit dated in terms of RPG presentation.

They had that extremely dry and snooty professor conceited authoritative tone to the writing which seemed to be present in all late 70s/early 80s RPGs.  There was no art.  I recall running across complex orbital equations every so often.  

(That's another thing I think dates some games: when they start throwing ultra hard SF stuff out there, like orbital period equations and stuff of that nature.  I don't have anything against hard SF.  I used to read a bit of the genre and found it fascinating.  However, in terms of RPGs it was really only something which lurked around the corners of the 80s, and which often didn't seem very playable.  They seemed more like games for people who wanted to do a bunch of cube roots, and calculate the exact number of joules of energy needed for their journey to the 7th planet of the star system than for people who wanted to adventure.)

On the other hand, I remember thinking Traveller's mechanics were ahead of their time.  Of course, it was only the third game system I ever saw, and the second skill based system.

Quote from: dragoner;786205bump

ok, past the horrible stretch


What feels dated to me are non unified tasks systems, such as having a different mechanic for each action. Bad art is another biggie, art direction is not so tough, and artists hard to find now that there is the internet. Un-necessary crunch, it's fine if you want a tactical combat game, but I don't want it in my rpg.

To me, that's dated ca. 2000-2014.

Quote from: Will;786232FATAL has a rule where you roll d100 to determine a target number, and then another d100 to see if you beat the target number you rolled. IE: 50/50. That's stupid.

It is indeed, and I recall it from another oft-mocked product.

QuoteExplain to me how % chance to break down doors has more meaningful nuance and subtlety than giving it a d20 rating.

I don't recall seeing that, but the reason for doing so is obvious: You've got a door that doesn't break as often as one time in 20.

Quote from: Phillip;786465To me, that's dated ca. 2000-2014.

You know I still have my LBB's but don't look at them because I have just about memorized them. What I find is that often people just followed a 8+ regime like a unified mechanic for the skills, even though that isn't how it is written. I also wrote GDW around 1984-ish to clarify the first blood rule. The calcs and tables never bothered me, and still don't, as I use them in my work all the time. Layout still seems good, minimalist is a fine approach, and with some of the drawings, you know they were harkening back to military Field Manuals of that era.

Which brings another question to my mind, is it the lack of science backgrounds that make people not like tables and formulas? Recently, while getting a degree in business, my macro-econ prof asked on the test if people like the data written out or in tables and graphs more, cross referencing the answers, it seemed that the sci back ground people were much more likely to answer tables and graphs, even though we were a minority of students in the class.

To touch on THAC0 for a moment. This does feel like a dated concept to me.

While it is basic Addition and Subtraction THAC0 was born out of War Gaming where 0 was a definitive Value and nothing dropped below it.

Once the idea of magic was introduced and things became harder than the hardest natural thing to hit and 0 was no longer a Lowest possible value and numbers dropped into the negative.  

While gamers introduced to THAC0 that did not have this bit of baggage to confuse the matter the presentation creates a situation where modifiers had to be established during play instead of before combat slowing game play. Switching to a base bonus to be added to a roll that is compared against a static value removed some degree of math from play allowing people to focus on the effects of the resolution and not the resolution mechanics themselves.

While some people may like doing math, can you say that the additional steps required to resolve THAC0 added to the play experience?

Lastly, here is an article on why does subtraction seem difficult to learn.

Quote from: jibbajibba;786338Fair enough

My rules of thumb are simple

i. If a rule uses complex maths that could be simplified with no loss of texture
ii. If a rule always needs to be read through every time its used becuase its just not grokkable
iii. If a rule counteracts the common sense of the setting
iv. If a rule claims to do one thing but actually the way its is implemented at teh table actually does the opposite

these are bad rules.
They might be new bad rules that are trying to be cool, like roll a target number then roll to hit the target number, or they could be bad old rules AD&D grapple rules .

Now some rules seem fine at the time, the various different parallel skill systems in AD&D 1e for example but you realise over time that they either fail to be consistent (if the fighter is making dex checks to disarm the trap but the thief is making F/R trap rolls the fighter will alway be better with no training) or can be simplified (so Dex x 5% with a -25% modifier is much the same as Dex check -5 on a d20). This means you can spend more time playing the game and less time worrying abouth the rules.

That's not AD&D 1e, pal. Said so right in Sage Advice, which was of course responding to a proposal to ignore the actually stated rules.

Back to that dated thing called common sense: Why are you denying the thief its roll for expertise in addition to whatever chance you are allowing in its absence?

Quote from: Certified;786473To touch on THAC0 for a moment. This does feel like a dated concept to me.

While it is basic Addition and Subtraction THAC0 was born out of War Gaming where 0 was a definitive Value and nothing dropped below it.

Once the idea of magic was introduced and things became harder than the hardest natural thing to hit and 0 was no longer a Lowest possible value and numbers dropped into the negative.  

While gamers introduced to THAC0 that did not have this bit of baggage to confuse the matter the presentation creates a situation where modifiers had to be established during play instead of before combat slowing game play. Switching to a base bonus to be added to a roll that is compared against a static value removed some degree of math from play allowing people to focus on the effects of the resolution and not the resolution mechanics themselves.

While some people may like doing math, can you say that the additional steps required to resolve THAC0 added to the play experience?

Lastly, here is an article on why does subtraction seem difficult to learn.

THAC0 grew out of people not liking to use the original simple matrixes. As a "usual thing," it dates to the late 1980s (2nd Ed. AD&D).

The old Monster & Treasure Assortments pack, IIRC, listed THAC9. That becomes problematic with high-level monsters, but really all you need is the HD and the matrix, no arithmetic at all.

Likewise no arithmetic with most rolls using a system of roll higher than defense but not higher than offense, but then people bitch about that! Yes, they do want to do math with each roll.

Quote from: MrHurst;786381I do have to ask what the big difference between rolling a d20 and rolling percentile is to people. In my mind it's just a percentile in chunks of five, which I rarely have need to go much deeper detail in.

If you want a more consistent result bell curves are the way to go, but I'm missing the significant difference in the flat roles(d20 or percentile) other than granularity.

The datedness* is in the specific concept that all rolls must be d20 + mods vs a Target Number. So eg with Morale, people insist it should be a Will save or similar - which misses the point that the morale check is to model the behaviour of a complex system: will a GROUP of people turn and flee, or fight on? I don't need morale checks for individual behaviour, I need them for gangs, squads, regiments, armies.

A d20 check that is functionally the same as the 1e d% group morale check would be ok I guess, but IME the BX 2d6 morale roll, roll over Morale score to flee, works far better in play and requires no lookup, +1/-1 situational modifiers being easy to apply intuitively. It's notable that Warhammer, the biggest fantasy/sf wargame, uses the same mechanic, there called a Leadership check.

*I think people are growing out of this fetish. It feels like a 3e/d20 era thing to me. I could be wrong though.

Quote from: Ravenswing;786382a whopping lot of people seem to work by the definition of "rules that have aged" = "rules I don't like."[/COLOR]

Yes, that's inherent in the idea of a system seeming 'dated'.
I suppose I could say that I like THAC0, but accept that it comes across as dated.

Personally my brain hurts if I don't calculate the number needed _on the die_ to succeed prior to the roll. So for me 'd20 system' becomes "Deduct bonus from DC to find Target Number" - which is no easier than THAC0's "deduct AC from THAC0 to find Target Number".

Quote from: MrHurst;786381I do have to ask what the big difference between rolling a d20 and rolling percentile is to people. In my mind it's just a percentile in chunks of five, which I rarely have need to go much deeper detail in.

If you want a more consistent result bell curves are the way to go, but I'm missing the significant difference in the flat roles(d20 or percentile) other than granularity.

The difference is that you can get probabilities smaller than 1 in 20, which requires a second die in any case if your first is d20.

If you don't care about such a smaller probability, then the reason always to roll d% is because you've been smoking that Universal Mechanic crack along with the heads who insist on 1d20 or 4dF or whatever.

Quote from: S'mon;786480Yes, that's inherent in the idea of a system seeming 'dated'.
I suppose I could say that I like THAC0, but accept that it comes across as dated.

Personally my brain hurts if I don't calculate the number needed _on the die_ to succeed prior to the roll. So for me 'd20 system' becomes "Deduct bonus from DC to find Target Number" - which is no easier than THAC0's "deduct AC from THAC0 to find Target Number".

Some of what people are calling dated, are from the very start, which in other words is that they aren't smart enough to figure some things out. Which you can't expect them to come out and say of course.

Maybe they were smoking lead ...

Quote from: Phillip;786481The difference is that you can get probabilities smaller than 1 in 20, which requires a second die in any case if your first is d20.

Which at least is a philosophical debate over whether such things actually matter in the context of RPG task resolution.

Over the course of a standard session, it seems like the probabilities would even out.  You'd have an extra 2% here, a lost 3% there, a gained 1% a while later.  A game where you could save the odd earned percentage points like pennies might be somewhat interesting if more than a bit persnickety.