I was sitting there, going over stuff for both old and new TTRPGs, and realizing that sometimes I was in the mood for the new, and sometimes I was in the mood for the older.
I feel like TTRPGs have definitely changed over time-mostly for the better, mind you(my favorite system right now is Pathfinder 2e; I think it does a whole lot of stuff really well), but I also, once in awhile, occasionally find myself missing some aspects about the older systems, as well. Again moods.
I mean, moods can hit for lots of things. Sometimes I'm in the mood to play one of my modern MMORPGs(FFXIV, new WoW), sometimes I want Classic WoW, sometimes I want my straight up older games-PS2, PS1, even NES or SNES. (I don't consider playing old games 'nostalgia'-I never stopped playing them.) Music, as well. One of my favorite bands is a black metal band, Satyricon(any metal fans probably know them, non-metal fans, probably not), and one thing I really love about the band is that they change with every album a bit; they're still *them*, they're still black metal, but I get a little something new every time, so they have an album for my every mood. Other times I'm in the mood for stuff from the 80s-Bathory, Mercyful Fate, Venom, or the like. (And then other times I want some dark industrial metal, and then other times I want something that's not metal, and I turn to synthwave.)
TTRPGs are the same. I realized over time that each type of RPGs-new-school, I guess 'middle school'(huh, maybe post 3.X stuff from the D&D side? Or maybe the 3.X stuff is middle now, I can't say), and older school(early-mid 90s and before), all offer up something different that I like.
One of the best thing about the modern times is, 100%, the amount of variety and choice one has for concepts. If you have a concept, you can probably make it(especially in something like PF2e.) I had mentioned the band above-their song, Black Crow on a Tombstone(listen to it, btw, it's amazing), actually inspired a character concept of mine. I was able to mix and match mechanics to come up with a corvid-themed barbarian from the northern regions, who dipped into druid to get a crow animal companion(the crow's name is Nero, btw), and the character follows Barzahk, who is a deity associated with the dead and travel(who has a tombstone lock on him and does often take a corvid form.) He's Animal-aspected with 'bird' taken, which is open to whatever you want; it doesn't have to be a hawk or eagle. Through backgrounds, skill choices, and everything, he was able to be crafted just about perfectly. He's by no means the only character I've managed to craft just about perfectly, either; I've made a few through class, free archetype, skills, feats and the like who I fine-tuned toward what I wanted. Oh, and not to mention weapon choices. I swear the books have an extreme variety. Some are more locale oriented, but are usable if you come from there or visit there(or just dependent on the GM, there's very little in terms of items that I restrict.)
(Here are some model examples of Einar from Heroforge, just because I like showing them.)
Another great thing about modern times-at least IMO-is the games are MUCH more fair. There's more 'save or suck' instead of 'save or die', and instant death in a like-leveled fight is exceedingly rare. There might be some mathematical combination that might result in one, but it's likely not going to be in just one attack and more of a result of some very bad luck a few times in a row(either rolling poorly, or the enemy rolling really good, and probably both together.) No permanent level draining or anything like that. Solid HP at lower levels. You do need to at least try to play somewhat smart(running up in an enemy's face with a poor Armor Class and/or more middling HP means you can get knocked down for the count way more often), but in general, you are at much less risk of Insta-Exploding.
Alignment is also basically not a thing anymore, or when it is(like in D&D), alignments aren't nearly as stringent. Neutral paladins? Sure. Neutral Assassins? Sure. No need to be good or evil. PF2e just did AWAY with alignment and has people pick something called edicts and anathemas; basically you have your characters follow things. Or if you're a cleric, follow your deity's things. And even before PF2 dropped alignment, things were generally more lenient than later. You could have optional rules like 'multi-step alignments' where a character could be 'Somewhat Chaotic, Somewhat Good'. Basically it once again leads back to choice, and letting you play the character YOU wanna make. There IS a push toward playing more heroic or neutral characters, mostly just due to the logistics of mixing bad guys in with non-bad groups, but you can at least play 'kinda naughty' types if you work with your party and GM that your character has some codes(a monk I have who follows Akuma has the whole 'Strong Opponent' PoV where he's unlikely to really bother with picking on anyone under his weight class, even if he's pretty merciless otherwise, and he'll even go after people picking on those under their weight class since he thinks they're weaklings themselves for doing that.) In any case, no alignment means you can put together a pretty complex, layered array of a character's codes and edicts that a strict alignment system had trouble with.
(3.X/PF1 still used alignment like the older days, though it was still a little less strict. But they were still stuck in the whole 'Assassins must be evil' mindset and such, which of course we houseruled right under a rug.)
While minmaxing and optimizing is certainly a big thing, you do kind of have to *try* to make something that doesn't work. It IS possible, and I have had a couple of concepts that, after scribbling them down, didn't quite gel together as much as I'd have liked mechanically, but it's relatively difficult to go completely useless. And even if you do have a weaker concept, I feel like hashing everything out as a group, with a GM, can be helpful. All in all, though, you will likely at least manage to make something that's 'good enough at something.'
Now, with all of that, as I'm someone who does like talking about things I like-I wanna point out that yes, there are things that I prefer in an older game like D&D 2nd edition. Since as much as I praise some of the newer design things, there are things that I do indeed like more. I mean, that's what this whole blog is about.
For one, while you can minmax(trust me, I was good at it)-there really isn't all that much you CAN do. Besides juggling a couple of scores if you do a 4d6 drop low rolling, or the Points Plus Dice method(in 2e, everything started at 8, you roll 7 dice, and add them onto the scores to get what you want-it was a nice way to qualify for the harder classes with a lot of prime reqs like a ranger, or really high ones like a paladin or specialist wizard.) But not needing to minmax is not a bad thing. Newer games almost sort of *push* you towards optimization a bit, the way the math and mechanics work. This is fine, since I think we usually gear toward that ourselves, but I can't lie that it's not fun to just kinda cut loose and do something less optimized without worrying about screwing with the rest of the party(since teamwork is very, very emphasized in newer games. Again, not a bad thing, but it puts a level of character creation pressure on folks, even if subconscious.) The 2nd edition character I have is a fighter/death cleric multiclass with the points + dice, who I did manage to get an 18 and a 16 in his Str and Wis respectively(even rolled a 94 for his percentile!) but his other scores are pretty...okay? he gets no other bonuses with Dex 10, Con 14, Int 13-and one is slightly below(his Cha is 8-he's a little creepy and weird, though not unable to function in society by any means.) But he's fine and does his classes well. I didn't minmax his weapon loadout-he does have a scythe(Death cleric, again), and he swaps this with a morningstar + shield. I probably could've given him a better weapon that Clerics can use, like a flail to trip with or a warhammer for a better chance at finding a magical one-but I liked the morningstar on him.
Besides this, you kinda minmaxed a bit in terms of taking spells, or maybe some weapon or non-weapon choices(Longsword vs. Bastard Sword was a common one, mostly due to longswords being the most common kind of magical weapon, but bastard swords just being awesome mechanically), but even then there was only so much you could really do. When it came up, it was often just a case of X vs. Y, and the difference was likely on the more minor side.
Then there are times where it's kinda fun to play the concept of "Ordinary people becoming heroes" to quote a late old friend on this. Throwing 3d6 down the line, or 3d6 twice down the line and coming up with a concept from what you get has its own kinda fun. It might not be good if you have a specific concept in mind("I REALLY wanna play a Ranger"), but if you really dunno what you want to play, it can be a lot of fun.
Math nowadays assumes a certain level of bonuses and penalties; this becomes difficult without a lot of GM fiat. In the old days, typical enemies were made in the monster manual assuming the standard character creation system, which usually resulted in one above average/good score, one below average score, and four in the more average range. Luck could change this, of course, but generally that's how the monsters were tuned. And for me-I dunno, I always found it easier to add a few HP onto an enemy for a party that had a bit higher stats(even then I didn't have to do that often.) I did a character like this; a pretty average dude who ended up a dwarf cleric(his Con was high so I decided to go dwarf, and his 2nd highest score was Wisdom at a whopping 13, everything else was like 8-12) who was a brewer, who got the Call from Gond, one of the Dwarven pantheon, so off he went. He had Brewing as a non-weapon proficiency along with Religion. Definitely a pretty average dude who became an adventurer and probably will join some other average folks in a tavern to go clear out a kobold lair or something and then see where fortune takes him.
There's also this level of freeform, chill adventuring in those days. Now, 1e, maybe not so much, that was cut-throat dungeon crawling Dark Souls stuff(yes, I just called 1e the Dark Souls of tabletop), but in 2nd edition? You could just kinda meander along, fights weren't overly tactical(I don't mean ToM vs. grid-hell, lots of folks used grids back in 2e-I just mean they were less...mathy and crunchy?), and just the general design of the game was 'Group of hearty adventurers poking around places and chatting a lot.' It had dangers(like I said above, the old days were not kind in terms of insta-kills and some really unfair mechanics like the godforsaken level draining), but....it's difficult to really put into words beyond "A laid-back atmosphere."
Another cool thing is that there's far fewer abilities in the old days, and there are times where I kinda like that. Because a lot of modern games give all classes lots of abilities, that have like ranges, durations, properties, traits and the whole nine-almost like a video game-that's a LOT to keep track of sometimes. Like, your average mid level fighter in PF2e has probably to keep track of than even a higher level wizard or cleric in the old days. You had spells, spell slots, the occasional ability like lay on hands or a druid's shapechange, but in general, your character sheet was not 20 pages long(unless you wanted it to be.) I'm looking at an example 5th level fighter in my collection here, and he has quite a bit to keep track of already. Sometimes, when I play something, I just want to be able to have 2-3 pages in front of me and maybe a piece of scratch paper.
At the end of the day, though-there's room for old and new. that's why I like the fact that all the books still exist, just like I like the fact old CDs still exist. Can always pop one in no matter what the mood.
(2e/3e Shadowrun is still the best, tho.)
