"Move On!" Topic

Which rulesets do people keep playing, when they really should move on to something newer/better?

Apostasy it may be, but TSAtF seems awfully dated to me. I also do not understand the continued attachment to CLS

My own rules.

What does "dated" have to do with anything?

And who is going to tell me I "have to move on"?
Who died and made YOU boss?

Chess is dated too, by the way. No supply lines, no…

I was going to say "no opportunity fire" but en passant covers that.

What does "dated" have to do with anything?

Have there been no improvements in game design over the decades?

Not one to defend TS&TF but if it works for people…

Chess

I always have a urge to play Tractics.

AK47

Have there been no improvements in game design over the decades?

"Improvements"? In whose opinion?

"Newer" does not equal better.
Is Taylor Swift better than Linda Ronstadt? Hell no.

None. If they like the rules and have fun with them I'm not going to tell them to switch.
But if They aren't happy and don't have fun with them then they need to make an effort to find something that suits their gaming needs and maybe spend a few bucks for a PDF.

If it's still fun for you, keep playing. I bet someone out there is still using spring-loaded toy guns to knock over tin soldiers, and getting the warm fuzzies when it's time to take the game down.

Who decides what's "an improvement" in game design? If people enjoy playing a particular game or system then why should they "move on"? They like it. End of story.
I'm a fan of TSATF and other 'older' rules and am perfectly aware of more current and up-to-date rules and designs. However, I don't enjoy playing those rules, so why should I move on?
I like play board wargames, too. But…here's a surprise…I prefer the old SPI and Avalon Hill games to many of the newer games.
Yeah, yeah, I'm an old fart. Get off my lawn. Guess what? Too bad. It's my perogative.

Tic-tac-toe

Three questions in one here:
1. Which rules do you feel are badly dated?
2. Which of these do people continue to play?
3. Is there something out there that is not only newer but better in all ways?

We played a lot of PigWars, but have largely switched to Saga over the past few years. However, the resulting increased familiarity with Saga has led me to realize that there are some things PigWars does much better than Saga does, some scenarios where it just works and feels better.

Grelber

Just because a rule set is older certainly does not infer lack of quality. The Sword and the Flame has stood the test of time very well. The games are fast, furious and fun. That is a winner in any era. I no longer fall for the newest "shiny" rules any longer. There are some rules that are good at what they do and are classic. If I and my friends enjoy a set of rules we will keep playing it no matter how new or not new they are.

I still play On To Richmond and TSATF and still enjoy them over newer and "better" rules. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Heck, for AWI we use 1776, which was released in 1976. Are there newer rules? Sure. Are there better rules? Depends on what you want. We like the feel of them so why change for no reason other than that there are newer rules?

Sundance, I cut my teeth on 1776.
I'm pining to break them out for a game.
Since none of my current figures fit on 1776 frontages… Shoot. Why change anything if both sides are based the same?

I just played a TSATF game in the Irish Rebellion of 1798. The game played perfectly, and nobody came up with any reason to change the rules.

Bottom line is NOBODY "should" move along if they like what they are playing. Why should they?

I don't understand the attraction of Empire or ALS, but they both still have fans. I'm not interested in playing those games anymore, but I will not tell someone else that they need to change the rules they use.

The appeal of DBA, Warhammer Ancient Battles, and a few others doesn't make sense to me, but if you like a game, play it. Ain't nobody right to say you shouldnt.

I suppose newer games are generally faster and a bit cleaner i terms of mechanics, but not in all cases and not always for the best.

What Winston said, several times.

If it works, why change. New does not necessarily equal better either.

If everyone else at your club is playing the new shiny, you've not got a lot of choice but to join in or sit alone and grump. Some do choose to do that of course. . .

I played TSATF when it first came out. Moved around a lot so no space to keep figures. The rules were lost in one move.

I just bought them again last week. So I guess I'm moving backwards.

Matthew

Editor Bill wrote

"Have there been no improvements in game design over the decades?"

None whatsoever. The game is the essentially the same as it was when Featherstone, Scruby, Moreschauser, and even Wells first made it. The essentials remain with only the outer chrome being different, and after a time even that is merely a rehash of something older.

We bump around with this rules and that until we find the ones we like and then we stick to it, or we design our own, which I did. The rules I use now are the best in the world, to me, so why should I move on?

I would strongly suggest the move away from rules requiring a certain basing size and number of figures per base to be a HUGE advancement (not to mention the ability to be used with different scale minis). There is nothing more laughably ridiculous then a 3 page introduction on how you must base your units to play these (presumably handed down from heaven on a stone tablet) rules. The break through has allowed many more people to be able to play many different rulesets. This has been very good for the hobby because people have not been off in silos separated from each other. This has allowed further cross fertilization of great ideas and more engagement in general in the hobby.
YMMV.

There have been huge improvements, which are obvious to most people whether they want to admit it or not.

There are massive improvements in the physical product itself, going from a typed/xeroxed book with a few hand-drawn sketches to an attractive full-color book that uses color and good layout as a mnemonic tool to better organize and present the text.

There are basic conceptual improvements, like no longer demanding that rules have fixed ground, time, or man scales. Those were always ridiculous in any event, since they were so fudged. (How long did a battle's "rally phase" really take in history, anyway? Gimme a break.)

There's the transition away from fixed distances in inches or mm, to a flexible base-width measuring system, so that anybody can play with any figures or bases. (When's the last time you saw a game that asked you to re-base your figures?)

There have been huge improvements in the presentation of mechanics: no more page after page of charts and tables and flowcharts. The better modern games have found smart ways to apply game values without requiring tons of math or memorization or a pocket calculator, as we needed back in the day.

There has been an emphasis lately on smaller games that require less time, space, and money before the player can begin playing. That's an improvement for anybody who likes to save time, space, or money, obviously, which is most people.

And I think there has been a big improvement in the quality and clarity of writing, frankly, at least in English language rules. When I look at the game books of 20+ years ago, I realize that the spelling and grammar are often stunningly bad. I paid $20 USD-30 (easily more than $40 USD in today's money) twenty-some years ago for rulebooks where the author couldn't be bothered to know the difference between its and it's, or between your and you're or there, they're, and their.

Sure, there are still some clunkers, but it's not the norm, not the way it used to be. And not just grammar and spelling, but also clarity. Old rules were often vague rules and the players just improvised because there were no online Forums and no way to get an answer quickly. Nowadays authors usually do a much better job defining their terms, using those terms consistently, and covering contingencies in the rules.

I play some cutting edge designs and I play some age-old stuff.

Rogue Trader and Laserburn sit alongside Chain of Command on my table.
For RPG's I'll play original edition D&D and I'll play some bleeding-edge indie game the next day.

I think, as has been said, quality is generally much higher today but there's plenty of fun, old games to be had and sometimes a particular game never quite did get done again.

Surely there'd be more perceived need for advertising if a particular set of rules WASN'T selling, Attila.

I think the more important point is that our esteemed editor has to keep TMP's post count as high as possible; hence the steady 'pulse' of editor-generated controversial topics guaranteed to spawn prolonged discussions.

My own as nothing has appeard that is better than mine yet. But I hope to find a set one day.