I'd like to see a more fleixble experience mechanic, rather than spend points to add x to your numbers. Inevitably that just makes characters better without any counterbalance so that, at some point down the line, they have to exit the game world because they are too powerful to have any meaning.
Batman hasn't really improved in 50 odd years of comics. He was always the peak of human excellence, so how does he improve?
On the other hand Judge Dredd has been a street judge for 30 odd years and hasn't really improved - his player might have spent xp on getting bionic implants after being blinded in City of the Damned. But that isn't the sort of thing xp mechanics were traditionally for.

Quote from: StormBringer;538998I don't see too many recent games that are for generalized play, and more that seem to be a very narrow genre instead.

I don't know what "recent" means for you, so I don't know what time period you're referring to, but in large part this phenomena is a direct result of the odd design proclivities of The Forge. Games like Dogs in the Vinyard are very narrow, compared to D&D, Traveller, even Shadowrun or most oWOD games. (Yes, there is more breadth of possible campaigns playing an all-vampire party than in playing DitV.)

Their entire gaming ideology championed games with a hyper-narrow focus. Such boutique games were "coherent" and classic RPG's were "incoherent." This notion seeped into the culture of game designers, eventually bringing us the "coherent" gamist 4e. (Possibly explaining Estar's claim that 4e hyper-focused on one style of fantasy gaming.)

Coherent games were to sweep incoherent games aside, and become the dominant force in the marketplace. This entirely failed to occur. Ironically enough, because Forge theory itself was the most incoherent thing in gaming.

So this phenomena has nothing to do with character-scale concerns, but with adherence to a wrong headed, and arrogant, design philosophy. Only now are we seeing a trend away from this, quite consciously in the case of 5e. I hope it continues.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;539032I'd like to see a more flexible experience mechanic, rather than spend points to add x to your numbers.

Well, everything game mechanical in an RPG is numbers. Better gear. Better stats. Higher level/better skills. etc.

So, either the numbers improve... or they don't. The character remains the same (as you later suggest).

In such a case, why track or have XP at all? It's understood you'll always be as good as you are now (barring acquiring some piece of equipment that is better than what you carry), so no XP is needed.

(IIRC, the original version of FASERIP Marvel lacked experience rules, so characters stayed the same. This seems to be what you're suggesting.)

I wouldn't like such a game, and I'm pretty sure most RP-ers wouldn't, either. Advancing one's character, achieving a goal, is part of the excitement of playing RPG's.

YMMV.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;539032Batman hasn't really improved in 50 odd years of comics.

But Robin (aka Nightwing), Superman, The Flash, Green Lantern, and many others have. Not that this proves anything about how RPG's should be.

Im not suggesting game shouldn't have XP systems. I'm saying it's something i'd like to see: something a bit different than merely rising numbers. Nor do i want to see no xp systmes. That would be silly.

Quote from: Spinachcat;538900Here's the modern RPG testing procedure:

Hand the core book to an old whiny fuck. If the OWF shits his diapers, it's a modern game. If the OWF drools while mumbling about his totally rad 8th grade character, it's not a modern RPG.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;539063I'm saying it's something i'd like to see: something a bit different than merely rising numbers.

But what? What else is there, other than some form of number?

How would characters change, if their stats, levels, skill values, or what have you stayed exactly as they were at character creation?

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm genuinely curious. How would characters meaningfully advance if nothing core to the character changes?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;539074But what? What else is there, other than some form of number?

How would characters change, if their stats, levels, skill values, or what have you staid exactly as they were at character creation?

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm genuinely curious. How would characters meaningfully advance if nothing core to the character changes?

Honestly, the only thing that I can think of is branching out into new skills and abilities and adding the collective of the character.  However, that doesn't really seem sustainable, nor feasible in the long run.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;539074But what? What else is there, other than some form of number?

How would characters change, if their stats, levels, skill values, or what have you staid exactly as they were at character creation?

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm genuinely curious. How would characters meaningfully advance if nothing core to the character changes?

I don't know. I'm not claiming such a system actually exists.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;538549Which would then give us...

Old-School Gaming: Any RPG released during or before the year you personally started roleplaying.

Although they both lack bite. Subtlety is fine, in its place, but I prefer tweaking noses.

"...and is thus utter shit." should be added to the end of Modern Gaming.

"...and is thus utterly perfect." should be appended to Old-School Gaming.

These may lack subtlety, but they more accurately convey the attitudes so often on display.

But I don't think everyone thinks in those terms.  There's lots of people who like "modern" games, but I think they still tend to define "modern" and "old school" (or at least "not modern") by that definition.

RPGPundit

I am more and more convinced the term "old school" was useless from the start, and becomes increasingly more so as time passes and more and more play styles are absorbed into the OSR umbrella. Soon playing 4e will be "old school". :rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;539714I am more and more convinced the term "old school" was useless from the start, and becomes increasingly more so as time passes and more and more play styles are absorbed into the OSR umbrella. Soon playing 4e will be "old school". :rolleyes:

Now that I have had a chance to think about this:

old school to me just means going back to the basics and doing it the tried and true way. It doesn't just apply to rpgs. Every activity I have been a part of talks about doing things old school and that is usually what is meant. Whether its journalism, boxing or making bagels.

That's the thing though: "old school" will mean different things for different people. For a non-negligible portion of the OSR crowd it means "playing D&D in a style more-or-less consistent with the TSR era" (which in itself IMO is so vague as to not be really helpful at all). I think that in the end, just putting "OSR" on your product is like playing buzzword salad. It doesn't say much about your actual product to begin with, but as time passes and more and more people redefine what "OS" is supposed to mean and whatnot, it says less and less about it too. Cue 13th Age and its "OS love letter to D&D".

Quote from: RPGPundit;539707But I don't think everyone thinks in those terms.  There's lots of people who like "modern" games, but I think they still tend to define "modern" and "old school" (or at least "not modern") by that definition.

I was taking a swipe at some attitudes recently on display on the site, not seriously trying to answer the question.

But if you insist on me providing a straight answer, rather than covertly needling a poster or two, I'd say the question is meaningless to me.

I've never had an explicit definition of "modern gaming", but if I did, it'd have nothing to do with my year of inception as a full gamer. I tend to think of releases as follows:

Modern: Anything in the last year or so.
Recent: Last 5 years.
Classic: 10+ years ago
Old School: 20+ years ago.

So, an old school renaissance, to me, is the upcoming "2050 feel" book for 4e Shadowrun.

(Damnit man, you stole all the bark and bite from my answers and made me take this silly question seriously. I hope you're proud of yourself. )

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;539719Now that I have had a chance to think about this:

old school to me just means going back to the basics and doing it the tried and true way. It doesn't just apply to rpgs. Every activity I have been a part of talks about doing things old school and that is usually what is meant. Whether its journalism, boxing or making bagels.

Old school to be is the attitude of if it's not there make it up, if you don't like it change it. It seems to me that the new generation of gamer needs to have a rule for everything and it must be explicit. New School means the DM/GM is just another player not the referee or the person that makes the setting/world move and interact with player decisions.

QuoteWhat qualifies as contemporary in gaming?

- unified mechanics, whenever possible.

- simplicity over complexity, whenever possible.

- focused design. not necessarily the theme-focused design of indie-games (though its also prevalent), but a design more conscious of its goals and how to reach those in a efficient manner from the start. (the opposite of this would be early 90s systems like Vampire and Shadowrun )

- cohesive art direction, and colorful art, whenever possible.