Quote from: Mishihari on April 15, 2023, 02:49:07 AMShark, you're usually right on with your comments, but not this time.  Most of that stuff is purely subjective.  You don't like race as class; others do.  There's no objective standard to say one is better than the other.  One could just as well say that classes are yesterday's design and skill based is the new hotness.  That's my view, but it's just what I like, not something provably better.  "Rising AC is more intuitive."  To you, buddy, and admittedly to a fair number of others as well.  Not to me - to me it makes no difference at all.  I'm reminded of the Europeans who tell us we should switch to metric because it's easier.  It's only easier to learn in the first place.  For everyday use it makes no difference at all. 

I've only every found one objective rule for game complexity:  if there are two ways to do exactly the same things, the better one is the one that involves less work.

The term "class" in RPGs essentially means "profession/role" and serves as a template to track a character's ability progression, and the idea that someone's race is their profession, or that it should be the basis for their ability development is nonsense, and at the risk of sounding like a SJW almost racist. You may prefer that for some unfathomable reason, but there's nothing subjective about pointing out how ridiculous the idea that race should be such a fundamental component to your ability development or possible role in the game.

And before someone points it out, no, race as class is not some magical method of achieving perfect game balance. I've often heard/read that asserted into existence by people defending race as class, but I've yet to see a convincing explanation for how building a class that's essentially a fighter, but with infravision and some stonework analysis ability then calling it a "dwarf" somehow achieves game balance.

Similarly, rolling a d20 then adding a modifier and comparing it to a target difficulty number (whether that represents "Armor Class" or the difficulty of some task) is objectively more intuitive, less convoluted and way more straightforward (to the point that simply looking at your roll's result automatically tells you what AC you "hit" or task difficulty you surpassed) than tracking a number you need to "hit" an AC that NOBODY has, then having to calculate which AC you actually hit, instead of just using the total result you actually rolled and going with it.

I find race as a class to be a matter of setting. If elves are slender pointy ear tree hugging humans, then restricting all player elves to one class makes no sense. However, if elves are mysterious, insular, semi magical creatures that rarely interreact with humans, then the few adventuring elves that do join a human party going to have strong similarities so class restrictions makes sense, and can be restricted down to one.

To me there is a rough distinction between two class design approaches:

class = archetype: With this approach race as class makes perfect sense. It absolutely reinforces a theme or setting.

class = profession: With this approach race as class makes no sense at all. A character's profession shouldn't be determined by their race. This is exactly where those who complain about race as class being "racist" start their arguments.

If one really cared to defuse the whole race as class kerfuffle, the smart move IMO would be to ditch the word "class" and not the word "race". Use a more specific term - "archetype" or "profession" - that fits that system's design approach and "problem" solved.

Quote from: Wisithir on April 15, 2023, 08:03:56 AM
I find race as a class to be a matter of setting.

Bingo. Race-as-class carries with it some pretty heavy setting implications. It implies that Dwarves, Elves, etc. are not really "people", and I mean that in the sense that they're metaphysically different, and perhaps don't have the same free will that humans do. That's the most apparent explanation for why every member of each race would have such reliably similar attitudes and aptitudes. Basically, it makes them the good-aligned equivalent of orcs. This is possibly intentional, since that is kind of how they are treated in both Lord of the Rings and Three Hearts and Three Lions which we know were big influences on the implementation of demi-humans in original D&D. Race-as-class works well if you're trying to run that kind of fairy-tale/metaphysical setting.

Problem is that in my experience, the majority of people including old-schoolers don't run demi-humans that way. They run them like Star Trek aliens, i.e., humans with a few cosmetic and cultural quirks. And I actually think there's a good reason for that. Namely, it makes them more fun to play. There are more players that want their elf to be able to get hammered at the tavern and hook up with the halfling bartender, than there are that want to play a serene, wise, detached elf sage for any length of time. It also gives the DM more to do with them in terms of NPCs. Let's be honest, neither Tolkien's or Anderson's elves are hugely deep and interesting as characters (with some exceptions, obviously). In that setting, I don't really think race-as-class serves much purpose.

Personally, I think the best approach to race-as-class is the one employed by Talislanta (and to a certain extent ACKS and FH&W) where its more Race+Occupation=Class, or where the demi-humans have their own class lists. That seems to me to be the best balance of keeping the non-humans different from humans, while still having variation within the non-human species. A halfling fighter should be very different from a human fighter, but that doesn't mean all halflings should have to be fighters.

It's interesting to see this idea floated, because I am a relatively young player (and game designer) and often find myself aggressively simplifying and consolidating things - and just in general breaking standing rules - to see how they work and to try to make the game run faster. It's sort of like the opposite of Chesterton's Fence: fuck around and find out, game design edition. I actually have a particularly pertinent example here.

I wasn't introduced to RPGs via D&D or any of the big-name systems; I started by playing a friend's custom-built homebrewed games and later moved to Dead Simple Roleplaying's one-page systems for the first few campaigns I ran. DSR Fantasy didn't use 3-to-18 attribute scores. It was on a 1 to 4 (or 5?) scale. When I started reading retroclones and D&D, I started asking myself what the point of having the ability score and the ability score modifier was, if not just for a matter of tradition (and a holdover from when they were scores that you rolled under, in the case of D&D).

Well, in my earliest home-made fantasy systems, I kept the ability score modifiers but dropped the scores themselves. And after years of playtesting, design, and tweaking, I can say with some certainty that the ability scores do serve a handful of interesting purposes that the modifiers can't. Specifically, their range is bigger, and it's also never negative. Modifiers go -4 to +4 (or -3 to +3 if you're using the weird scaling that a lot of retroclones do) and scores go 3 to 18. You can't roll anything except a d4 against a modifier because it's such a small range. Increasing or decreasing a modifier by d4 is like doing the same to a raw ability score by d8, and it's even worse with the smaller -3 to +3 range. Also, it's a pain to generate the modifier range by itself if your system doesn't have a concept of the score. Can you say "3d6/2-5" six times in a row? It's just not as fast as 3d6 and then convert.

So after a couple of years of experimentation, I'm thinking I might re-introduce it. Things that last a long time are probably solid design. That extra number sitting on the sheet hurts nobody and has a lot of weird non-obvious uses for your game design space. But I'm going to keep breaking things until I figure out how everything works. In this sense, I am probably averse to complexity, but specifically needless complexity. I want everything to be as fluid and elegant as possible, and it can be complex if the topic deserves it. That doesn't mean I always know what's useful and what's not; that's why I've been experimenting in private and not on a live system, ha ha. 

As far as others go, I only have anecdotal experiences to state. Most of the circles I play with skew heavily young (nobody over 30), and they're more or less fine with complexity in system design. Some of my players have chastised me for my attempts to streamline systems, actually, and sometimes they've been right (but it is experimentation, after all). But my circles also mostly shun 5e, so it's all but a given that we're outliers.

There's more to it than complexity.

D&D3E/PF1E were wildly popular, and still see a lot of play. That rightly gets attributed to the OGL, but people misunderstand how the OGL made this system popular. We tend to focus on how the OGL allowed 3rd party content to be published, but ignore the fact that most players used little to no 3rd party material. The biggest impact the OGL had on the popularity of Dungeons & Dragons was making the rules easy to find. There were a lot of games coming out at that time which were far simpler and easier to play than D&D, but you couldn't just go to d20srd.org and find all the rules you needed to play.

It's okay for a game to be complicated if you can easily find the rules.

While I frequently roll eyes at the Seattle natives, it is certainly the case that Pathfinder (moreso than D&D) allowed you to easily make pretty much any character idea you had in your head. Unlike D&D3E, it didn't require complicated multiclassing to do it, either. This is something that D&D5E has largely succeeded at. We can criticize many of these character concepts as furry bullshit and complain that modern players don't seem to understand that every character isn't appropriate for every game and setting, but those are separate issues. It is still a strength for these systems that, no matter what character concept you have, you can open up one of the books and point to it.

Then there are the rules themselves. Just like players enjoy having a lot of options for what to play, they also enjoy having a lot of options for how to play. Sure, a GM can simply issue rulings when the PCs do things that aren't clearly defined in the published rules, but that encounters a problem that a lot of GMs don't like to talk about. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the GM's role as an arbiter or judge of what happens in game, and the GM's role as the pilot of the antagonists. To what degree can the players trust the GM to fairly adjudicate the game when the GM is making up the rules?

You might think it's really cool that the party dies in this encounter, and I might not think that's cool at all. You might think it's cool for PCs to have the risk of death and failure and all of these other things hanging over their heads to provide a challenge, and I might not want my character to die. You might have lengthy, multiple paragraph arguments about how PC death is good for the hobby, and I might think PC death is not very good for my plans for this game. Your carefully thought out philosophy on PC mortality might have some merit, but it's also running counter to my desire for my character to live, and it may be making it difficult to trust you as an arbiter of the rules. So, players might prefer to have a lot of interactions defined under the rules in order to limit the GM's ability to engage in Kung Fu Treachery.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 15, 2023, 02:49:07 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 15, 2023, 12:11:48 AM
Greetings!

Do people still defend THHACO? I started with the game back in the day, and played for years. I still love AD&D.

However, AD&D and OD&D or whatever, aren't perfect. Ascending AC, I would think, would be seen as obviously superior. Clearer, more intuitive, and easier. Fucking math doesn't have fuck to do with it. Just working with positive, ascending numbers is easier and more intuitive. Why the fuck would anyone want to desperately cling to more awkward, convoluted systems and mechanics when the game has clearly made progress in a number of areas? I love Gygax, but having said that, again, in some areas, with some mechanics, there are better ways to do things, and clearer ways to explain them.

I like ascending AC, updated weapon damages, getting rid of awkward weapon-speed rules, and also a clear and flexible Race and separate Class system. Fuck "Race as Class." As mentioned, there have been clear improvements in mechanics, systems, presentation, explanation, and layout. That's just the way it is.

And I love AD&D, and the OSR, but geesus. Defending or championing the OSR and AD&D doesn't mean the old systems are perfect, or cannot be improved. Newer editions HAVE introduced some improvements in all the areas I mentioned. That should be celebrated, not vilified or disparaged. And I'm also all in favour of re-embracing "Old School" gaming and games, such as the case may be. Doing so doesn't mean that we have to slavishly or blindly embrace every particular rule, system, or mechanic.

Some of these arguments seem obtuse and pointless to me, really. It reminds me of someone proclaiming "But, we should use the 1875 Lever Action Rifle!"

These people need to get out and touch grass. Realize that we have access to AR-15's in 2023.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, you're usually right on with your comments, but not this time.  Most of that stuff is purely subjective.  You don't like race as class; others do.  There's no objective standard to say one is better than the other.  One could just as well say that classes are yesterday's design and skill based is the new hotness.  That's my view, but it's just what I like, not something provably better.  "Rising AC is more intuitive."  To you, buddy, and admittedly to a fair number of others as well.  Not to me - to me it makes no difference at all.  I'm reminded of the Europeans who tell us we should switch to metric because it's easier.  It's only easier to learn in the first place.  For everyday use it makes no difference at all. 

I've only every found one objective rule for game complexity:  if there are two ways to do exactly the same things, the better one is the one that involves less work.

Greetings!

Good Morning, Mishihari! Yes, I understand that you love AD&D. I do as well.

Have I misinterpreted the argument though? I was reacting to the argument--or the implication--that "people that reject THACO are just morons that can't do math!."

And, of course, much of all of this is subjective. I certainly believe that people have their own preferences. That is an interesting idea though--you don't believe there have been any improvements in systems, mechanics, presentation, layout, in the last 40-plus years since AD&D was introduced? AD&D is the perfect game, caught in amber as it were, and therefore no changes or adjustments are necessary for anything? I suppose there are a few people around that embrace that, my friend.

Who was it, D&D Bro? BroD&D or something? On our boards here, Aaron, I think, from Australia is also a strict AD&D fan. Maybe DungeonDelver, too. I admit, the obstinate, Tyrannosaurus Rex attitude appeals to me. My Girlfriend has said to me routinely that I'm an "Old School Tyrannosaurus Rex." I do like what I see as being some improvements though. Like with Ascending AC, just seems entirely more intuitive to me.

Maybe I have misunderstood the argument?

And yes, I hate the European Metric system! To hell with that! I like the old Imperial system that we use here in America. It is what I was born with, and raised with, all the days of my life. Pounds, ounces, inches, yards, and miles, damnit. MILES. Like the Roman Legions created allover the empire.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Corolinth on April 15, 2023, 11:29:00 AM
There's more to it than complexity.

D&D3E/PF1E were wildly popular, and still see a lot of play. That rightly gets attributed to the OGL, but people misunderstand how the OGL made this system popular. We tend to focus on how the OGL allowed 3rd party content to be published, but ignore the fact that most players used little to no 3rd party material. The biggest impact the OGL had on the popularity of Dungeons & Dragons was making the rules easy to find. There were a lot of games coming out at that time which were far simpler and easier to play than D&D, but you couldn't just go to d20srd.org and find all the rules you needed to play.

It's okay for a game to be complicated if you can easily find the rules.

While I frequently roll eyes at the Seattle natives, it is certainly the case that Pathfinder (moreso than D&D) allowed you to easily make pretty much any character idea you had in your head. Unlike D&D3E, it didn't require complicated multiclassing to do it, either. This is something that D&D5E has largely succeeded at. We can criticize many of these character concepts as furry bullshit and complain that modern players don't seem to understand that every character isn't appropriate for every game and setting, but those are separate issues. It is still a strength for these systems that, no matter what character concept you have, you can open up one of the books and point to it.

Then there are the rules themselves. Just like players enjoy having a lot of options for what to play, they also enjoy having a lot of options for how to play. Sure, a GM can simply issue rulings when the PCs do things that aren't clearly defined in the published rules, but that encounters a problem that a lot of GMs don't like to talk about. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the GM's role as an arbiter or judge of what happens in game, and the GM's role as the pilot of the antagonists. To what degree can the players trust the GM to fairly adjudicate the game when the GM is making up the rules?

You might think it's really cool that the party dies in this encounter, and I might not think that's cool at all. You might think it's cool for PCs to have the risk of death and failure and all of these other things hanging over their heads to provide a challenge, and I might not want my character to die. You might have lengthy, multiple paragraph arguments about how PC death is good for the hobby, and I might think PC death is not very good for my plans for this game. Your carefully thought out philosophy on PC mortality might have some merit, but it's also running counter to my desire for my character to live, and it may be making it difficult to trust you as an arbiter of the rules. So, players might prefer to have a lot of interactions defined under the rules in order to limit the GM's ability to engage in Kung Fu Treachery.

Greetings!

Thoughtful and salient commentary, Corolinth! Also, a strong defense of 5E as well! I also enjoy the kind of complexity and class specialization and options you describe. That has definitely been one of my favorite aspects of 5E.

In the other direction though, perhaps a paradox, is that I also very much appreciate simplicity, accessibility, ease of use, and speed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 15, 2023, 12:19:25 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on April 15, 2023, 11:29:00 AM
There's more to it than complexity.

D&D3E/PF1E were wildly popular, and still see a lot of play. That rightly gets attributed to the OGL, but people misunderstand how the OGL made this system popular. We tend to focus on how the OGL allowed 3rd party content to be published, but ignore the fact that most players used little to no 3rd party material. The biggest impact the OGL had on the popularity of Dungeons & Dragons was making the rules easy to find. There were a lot of games coming out at that time which were far simpler and easier to play than D&D, but you couldn't just go to d20srd.org and find all the rules you needed to play.

It's okay for a game to be complicated if you can easily find the rules.

While I frequently roll eyes at the Seattle natives, it is certainly the case that Pathfinder (moreso than D&D) allowed you to easily make pretty much any character idea you had in your head. Unlike D&D3E, it didn't require complicated multiclassing to do it, either. This is something that D&D5E has largely succeeded at. We can criticize many of these character concepts as furry bullshit and complain that modern players don't seem to understand that every character isn't appropriate for every game and setting, but those are separate issues. It is still a strength for these systems that, no matter what character concept you have, you can open up one of the books and point to it.

Then there are the rules themselves. Just like players enjoy having a lot of options for what to play, they also enjoy having a lot of options for how to play. Sure, a GM can simply issue rulings when the PCs do things that aren't clearly defined in the published rules, but that encounters a problem that a lot of GMs don't like to talk about. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the GM's role as an arbiter or judge of what happens in game, and the GM's role as the pilot of the antagonists. To what degree can the players trust the GM to fairly adjudicate the game when the GM is making up the rules?

You might think it's really cool that the party dies in this encounter, and I might not think that's cool at all. You might think it's cool for PCs to have the risk of death and failure and all of these other things hanging over their heads to provide a challenge, and I might not want my character to die. You might have lengthy, multiple paragraph arguments about how PC death is good for the hobby, and I might think PC death is not very good for my plans for this game. Your carefully thought out philosophy on PC mortality might have some merit, but it's also running counter to my desire for my character to live, and it may be making it difficult to trust you as an arbiter of the rules. So, players might prefer to have a lot of interactions defined under the rules in order to limit the GM's ability to engage in Kung Fu Treachery.

Greetings!

Thoughtful and salient commentary, Corolinth! Also, a strong defense of 5E as well! I also enjoy the kind of complexity and class specialization and options you describe. That has definitely been one of my favorite aspects of 5E.

In the other direction though, perhaps a paradox, is that I also very much appreciate simplicity, accessibility, ease of use, and speed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Not a paradox - I love both simplicity and lots of PC options too. Which is why I play  a simplified B/X... with feats!

5e has some cool options, but I feel it is needlessly complex. Too many features to keep track of. I'd cut half the skills and probably give everyone prof in all saves (and all weapons; doesn't break anything). But I've ran some 5e campaigns and it went fine for the first levels.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 15, 2023, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 15, 2023, 12:19:25 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on April 15, 2023, 11:29:00 AM
There's more to it than complexity.

D&D3E/PF1E were wildly popular, and still see a lot of play. That rightly gets attributed to the OGL, but people misunderstand how the OGL made this system popular. We tend to focus on how the OGL allowed 3rd party content to be published, but ignore the fact that most players used little to no 3rd party material. The biggest impact the OGL had on the popularity of Dungeons & Dragons was making the rules easy to find. There were a lot of games coming out at that time which were far simpler and easier to play than D&D, but you couldn't just go to d20srd.org and find all the rules you needed to play.

It's okay for a game to be complicated if you can easily find the rules.

While I frequently roll eyes at the Seattle natives, it is certainly the case that Pathfinder (moreso than D&D) allowed you to easily make pretty much any character idea you had in your head. Unlike D&D3E, it didn't require complicated multiclassing to do it, either. This is something that D&D5E has largely succeeded at. We can criticize many of these character concepts as furry bullshit and complain that modern players don't seem to understand that every character isn't appropriate for every game and setting, but those are separate issues. It is still a strength for these systems that, no matter what character concept you have, you can open up one of the books and point to it.

Then there are the rules themselves. Just like players enjoy having a lot of options for what to play, they also enjoy having a lot of options for how to play. Sure, a GM can simply issue rulings when the PCs do things that aren't clearly defined in the published rules, but that encounters a problem that a lot of GMs don't like to talk about. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the GM's role as an arbiter or judge of what happens in game, and the GM's role as the pilot of the antagonists. To what degree can the players trust the GM to fairly adjudicate the game when the GM is making up the rules?

You might think it's really cool that the party dies in this encounter, and I might not think that's cool at all. You might think it's cool for PCs to have the risk of death and failure and all of these other things hanging over their heads to provide a challenge, and I might not want my character to die. You might have lengthy, multiple paragraph arguments about how PC death is good for the hobby, and I might think PC death is not very good for my plans for this game. Your carefully thought out philosophy on PC mortality might have some merit, but it's also running counter to my desire for my character to live, and it may be making it difficult to trust you as an arbiter of the rules. So, players might prefer to have a lot of interactions defined under the rules in order to limit the GM's ability to engage in Kung Fu Treachery.

Greetings!

Thoughtful and salient commentary, Corolinth! Also, a strong defense of 5E as well! I also enjoy the kind of complexity and class specialization and options you describe. That has definitely been one of my favorite aspects of 5E.

In the other direction though, perhaps a paradox, is that I also very much appreciate simplicity, accessibility, ease of use, and speed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Not a paradox - I love both simplicity and lots of PC options too. Which is why I play  a simplified B/X... with feats!

5e has some cool options, but I feel it is needlessly complex. Too many features to keep track of. I'd cut half the skills and probably give everyone prof in all saves (and all weapons; doesn't break anything). But I've ran some 5e campaigns and it went fine for the first levels.

How about making a new book for OSR feats? Have it go from western/victorian to Pulp to modernish?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 15, 2023, 02:32:33 PM
How about making a new book for OSR feats? Have it go from western/victorian to Pulp to modernish?

(I'll answer here too)

Sounds like a cool idea, but it is unlikely that I'll write that, TBH.

My books usually start with ideas I want to add to my own games, and lately I've been playing nothing but a D&Dish sandbox.

Coincidentally, I have a friend (Jens, from the disoriented ranger) that is writing both a pulp version of B/X and an old-schoolish western games. I think they are far from finished but I'll share the news when he publishes it, FWIW.

(ALSO... now that I think of it, it wouldn't be hard to make a modern B/X, with feats - especially if you have no "spells". You'd need maybe three classes only - warrior / expert / scholar, and then some feats to turn them into boxers, snipers, doctors, sibarites, etc. I might try something like that if I ever run another horror campaign. But there are a couple of interesting books on the matter, that I've read briefly: Silent Legions and Ghastly Affair. There is also Gangbusters and Tall Tales. I do not know if any of them has feats, however).

EDIT: there is also a current discussion about Microlite in these forums - a very minimalist game with lots of options / feats.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 15, 2023, 03:04:44 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 15, 2023, 02:32:33 PM
How about making a new book for OSR feats? Have it go from western/victorian to Pulp to modernish?

(I'll answer here too)

Sounds like a cool idea, but it is unlikely that I'll write that, TBH.

My books usually start with ideas I want to add to my own games, and lately I've been playing nothing but a D&Dish sandbox.

Coincidentally, I have a friend (Jens, from the disoriented ranger) that is writing both a pulp version of B/X and an old-schoolish western games. I think they are far from finished but I'll share the news when he publishes it, FWIW.

(ALSO... now that I think of it, it wouldn't be hard to make a modern B/X, with feats - especially if you have no "spells". You'd need maybe three classes only - warrior / expert / scholar, and then some feats to turn them into boxers, snipers, doctors, sibarites, etc. I might try something like that if I ever run another horror campaign. But there are a couple of interesting books on the matter, that I've read briefly: Silent Legions and Ghastly Affair. There is also Gangbusters and Tall Tales. I do not know if any of them has feats, however).

EDIT: there is also a current discussion about Microlite in these forums - a very minimalist game with lots of options / feats.

Okay, thanks!

Don't forget video games as a factor. Younger players grew up on computer RPGs automating a lot of math and mechanics for them. They haven't built up the 'mental muscle' to take on that load themselves.

Shark's comment about the metric system gets at exactly why I prefer THAC0: it's what I grew up with, so it makes perfect sense to me. Ascending AC may be more logical, better design, etc., but those arguments do not make me want to use ascending AC, just like I don't want to use the metric system. Irrational? Maybe. This isn't a deal breaker for me. I've played in ascending AC games before. And if players were especially insistent, I'd use it as a DM too. But my default, for ye olde D&D and clones anyway, is always going to be THAC0.

Quote from: dungeonmonkey on April 15, 2023, 06:10:21 PM
Shark's comment about the metric system gets at exactly why I prefer THAC0: it's what I grew up with, so it makes perfect sense to me. Ascending AC may be more logical, better design, etc., but those arguments do not make me want to use ascending AC, just like I don't want to use the metric system. Irrational? Maybe. This isn't a deal breaker for me. I've played in ascending AC games before. And if players were especially insistent, I'd use it as a DM too. But my default, for ye olde D&D and clones anyway, is always going to be THAC0.

Likewise, 100%!  I even dislike having to use the metric system when I travel abroad, which is fairly often.  As for Shark's question about whether or not there have been any mechanics invented in the past 40 years to improve upon D&D, I'd answer "No, unless one considers the single saving throw adopted by Swords & Wizardry."  Which is why we've moved to primarily playing Swords & Wizardry these days after trying lots of these new fangled games with their "modern mechanics," raft of DEI races (or ancestries or whatever the snowflakes call them these days) and their flashy, color art.  Don't want it, don't need.  Gimme a handful of dice, a two-sided character sheet, and a pencil and I'm good to go!