"Latest And 'Greatest'" versus 'Tried And True'?

[FifteensAway]

Just a curiosity question - and, of course, it doesn't have to be a 'one or the other' situation since some will be in both camps at the same time:

How do you feel about the difference between focusing on the Latest and 'Greatest' ruleset versus Tried and True rulesets? 

The first is whatever is popular in the moment - part of the retail survival mode of always needing something new to sell being the likely fuel to the fire. 

The second is the venerable - or even not so venerable - set of rules that is well known and enjoyed and doesn't require rebasing or relearning to play.

No agenda here.  I tend to lie solidly in the Tried and True camp (my go to rules being Rank and File for most things, easy to learn, fast to play, gives a decision, people seem to like them) but I can sometimes dip a toe in 'new' things, last one being The Men Who Would Be King (interesting ideas, have yet to actually play them - and not that new, I know).

So, are you in one camp or the other or a butterfly between camps? 

I know several who are what I call "Wind Sock" gamers who will jerk from whatever is being slogged at the moment to what comes next but they never seem to get anything done beyond the minimum to play - but do seem to enjoy themselves (the ultimate goal).  Whereas I tend to dedicate myself to long projects far beyond the minimum needed to play - especially enjoy the terrain side since I like the visual element a lot.

There is no right or wrong answer.  Just wondering where others lie on the spectrum.

[Inkpaduta]

When I find a set of rules I like I stay with them. I am not a fan of dropping $30-50 bucks on a new set
just to "try it out". I am also very particular in what I like and don't like in rule sets so more often than not
I am unhappy with new rules.

[AndrewBeasley]

Over the years I've seen SciFi and fantasy gamers frequently go with the newest shinny rule set and historical players stay with the tried games.
Recently the raise of Old Hammer and the Osprey books have thrown this into a total mess with new rules across all genre.


I think I'm a third camp - I want to play some of my old games (I've a couple from the mid to late 70s) but wrapped up in a 'new' rule set from a few years ago that just seem to get in the way!
Who knows, in a few months (or more), I'll drift back to the old games till something pops up to distract me again.

[infelix]

I've been out of the hobby for some years now and I used to try out a lot of new games as they appeared on my radar, but most of them didn't end up staying around.

I'm now slowly starting to get sucked in again I find that it's mainly older games I want to get involved in, especially when it comes to Games Workshop games (I've been a long time player of their games before)

[Golgotha]

Have to say either "Latest and greatest" or "Tired and tested", as I love playing and hearing about old rules whilst being enticed by new rules and maybe wanting to give them a try. New rules are not always going to be the "greatest" and old are not necessarily "tired". It really depends on the rules themselves, how good they are in terms of factors like overall quality, period, one's personal taste, etc., and therefore not whether they are new or old.

Sometimes the fad stage of a new rule set can be annoying as everyone bangs on about it and I tend to only actually get rules once they have been around a while. One it is cheaper and two if I am still interested then they are perhaps worth getting and playing.

Problematically is the subsequent new additions of rules, which whilst these are normally an improvement on the original there is often also a money-making catch to it all and this too is annoying. Constantly having to update one's collection of rules gets tiring and is frankly not great.

The question is when does a rule set become old. I still consider miniatures and rules etc. that came out in the last 5 or even 10 years as new. For instance all the Blue Book Osprey Rule sets I still consider as new. Perhaps any rule set is new until you play it.

[Elbows]

I think it's always a curious thing when people say that a rule system is "dated".  Rules are rules.  The target audience might change, and some games have adopted stuff like apps, etc., but I generally think any game is playable unless it requires proprietary stuff that kills the game.

To me a game is simply fun or it isn't, the age is irrelevant.  I do not need a "supported" game if the basic components are available, or can be sourced easily.  If a game needs to release something every six months...it was designed that way and I'm not much for supporting games like that.  I'd much rather buy one core game which is solid value.  If optional extras are released later, it's fine - but I find a lot of games are mimicking the PC game world and pushing for "buy the core game (which is about 65% of a game) and buy expansions every three months!

While I've seen obvious advances all across miniature gaming with regard to miniature design/production...I haven't seen the same in game design (I mean printing quality has gone up, etc.).  I have rarely been shocked by a revolutionary gaming system.

[eilif]

I have 3 distinct categories, all of which I pull from

I have a few rulesets I've used for quite a while with no plans to change. Notable examples include Song of Blades and Mech Attack.

I have a couple that I've played for years but kept up with each new edition/version such as Kings of War, and Necromunda Community Edition.

I have some newer rulesets (or newer to me);I'm interested in playing like Planet 28 and Grimdark Future.

As for the issue of dated, I think it's definitely a thing.  Not to say it is always negative (though it does have that connotation), but there are definitely rules where certain features clearly point to a certain era of game development.

I think the negative connotation comes because in so many situations a newer game finds a way to handle a particular game aspect in a way that is simpler, more realistic, more elegant, or just more fun than an older ruleset.

All in the eye of the beholder of course, people still play Battletech, which is nearly the same game 35 years later

[Easy E]

The correct answer is YES. 

One thing that never happens is I don't believe in a "dead" game.  Once it is no longer supported by a company is when it gets interesting to me!  Therefore, I prefer games that do not require support beyond the rule book.  I hate the idea of "official" in just about any game.

That said, I am a bit of a rulebook magpie. A bit of a professional desire really.   

[Codsticker]

I really like trying out new rules but also have tendency to use certain sets over and over again regardless of age. If a new set is not too exorbitant and relevant to period/genre I am interest in then I will probably buy it for shits and giggles. I like to see if the author(s) have come up with an interesting mechanic or a new twist on an old one; how they deal with command, morale, friction, etc.
 

I think it's always a curious thing when people say that a rule system is "dated". 

I think this may refer to certain mechanics which seem to come and go, not necessarily an indication that newer sets are better quality. For example you don't see too many new sets that use a lot of charts anymore, or written orders or command points ('pips'). Who knows, in ten years games that use die rolls for activation or chit/card draws for random activation will be considered "dated".

One thing that never happens is I don't believe in a "dead" game.  Once it is no longer supported by a company is when it gets interesting to me!   

I have been a bit taken with GW's War of The Ring rules lately. Released in 2008, all you need is in one book since GW haven't supported it pretty much from the get-go it's perfect!

[eilif]

I have been a bit taken with GW's War of The Ring rules lately. Released in 2008, all you need is in one book since GW haven't supported it pretty much from the get-go it's perfect!

Out of curiosity, what do you like about War of The Ring?  I picked that book up somewhere but I've yet to crack it.  Is it similar to any other rulesets.

Been playing KoW recently and I still love it.

[Elbows]

The correct answer is YES. 

One thing that never happens is I don't believe in a "dead" game.  Once it is no longer supported by a company is when it gets interesting to me!  Therefore, I prefer games that do not require support beyond the rule book.  I hate the idea of "official" in just about any game.

That said, I am a bit of a rulebook magpie. A bit of a professional desire really.

Also this.  It baffles me that people complain about a game not being "supported".  The drip-feed, gotta-have-more approach is bizarre to me.  I'd much rather a single, quality game which is good from the get-go.  I don't need a company force feeding me constant models and updates to enjoy a game.  When someone says "I used to play X, but then it died"...my first question is always "Well, do you still play it?".

Weird...

[Codsticker]

Out of curiosity, what do you like about War of The Ring?  I picked that book up somewhere but I've yet to crack it.  Is it similar to any other rulesets.

I

I really liked how MESBG worked, with it's Priority, low key magic and heroes doing heroic things other than just killing MOAR! but I wanted it in a larger battle so War of The Ring is a natural fit for me. It is definitely not WFB. Also, since all the army info and stats are in one book there is no need to purchase different books. I picked it up years ago, played a bit but opponents were hard to come by so it's been probably been almost a decade since I played but just this past winter I have returned to painting LOTR minis with a goal of getting it back on to the table.

[Dentatus]

Hmmm... good question.
A lot of things have shifted with experience and age. I've grown very tired of the constant 'latest, must-have hotness' and Kickstarter hype. Cynical, even. I see most of it now as a scrabble for cash flow and pandering to a market perceived to have ADHD. Not as improvements.

That's not to say there aren't decent new games; I write rule books and support other indie/small-time designers and companies. I'm just extremely wary of mainstream commercial products. So if I'm not working on my own projects, I tend toward the 'Tried and True' these days - with the occasional dabble in off-brand stuff.

Take RPGs for example, half the guys in my local group are big-time D&D players. Really into it. Have been for a long time. TBH, I think it's ok and I enjoy the game with them, but I'm utterly taken by Free League's Symbaroum. I even picked up Forbidden Lands to see if I can't channel some of that murder hobo energy into OSR adventuring.

As far as my stuff goes, my hope is they end up in the 'Tried and True' category; simple, straightforward, reliable, and enjoyable. Able to stand the test of time.
 

[Hobgoblin]

Also this.  It baffles me that people complain about a game not being "supported".  The drip-feed, gotta-have-more approach is bizarre to me.  I'd much rather a single, quality game which is good from the get-go.  I don't need a company force feeding me constant models and updates to enjoy a game.  When someone says "I used to play X, but then it died"...my first question is always "Well, do you still play it?".

Weird...

Couldn't agree with this more. I love trying out new games (and with cheap PDFs and printed rulebooks, it's easily doable), but I tend towards the tried and tested: HoTT, Song of Blades and variants, any of the Bombshell/Brent Spivey stable, the Rampant family, Fistful of Lead, etc.

That said, a new game (in PDF form) will tend to 'pay for itself' in a couple of games: if you're entertaining two to six people for many hours for less than a tenner, you're doing pretty well - especially if opponents bring some beers!

I do think it's nice to give a new game (or a forgotten one) a spin now and then. But I really don't understand the link between games and particular models - basing aside. For example, I find Saga (Age of Vikings) a great game, but I've never played it except with orcs, dwarves, beastmen and the like (wolfriders make excellent Pechenegs, and I have a huge ugly Grenadier orc who's just the ticket for Egil Skallagrimson!). I've never tried the official fantasy version of Saga and have no particular desire to, because the historical game is nicely fantastic as is.

[Belligerentparrot]

It baffles me that people complain about a game not being "supported". 

In my experience this complaint most often comes up when what has been released doesn't cover everything that was promised/gestured to in the original release, or when clear problems were never tidied up before the game was canned (Hello, chaotic and often half-assed final releases from the old Specialist Games at GW). Those complaints I get. But I'm not trying to disagree with your main point - I like a game where the original release doesn't require further supplements.