What makes something "classic feel with modern design"?

[Reynard]

I was thinking about this in relation to both Shadowdark and Dragonsbane, each of which identifies itself asa classic feel with a modern design.

What does that mean to you? What elements of game design are modern, and what elements are "classic"? How much of the game needs to be "modernized" for it to count as "class feel with modern design"? How much is too much and the "classic" part is lost?

 

[Emberashh]

A lot of times thats just code for minimalistic.

And I actually wouldn't qualify Dragonbane as being a part of that camp. Dragonbane feels lighter because its in a different genetic strain of games and because it doesn't have near as robust a character definition system as its equivalents in the DND strain. But its still very much a BRP strain game and no more "modern" than any of its bigger cousins.

And I'd offer up as anecdotal proof that when I read Dragonbane I get enough of the neurons firing in the brain to actually be inspired to play. Can't say the same for Shadowdark, nor any other game that goes that overboard with minimalism they forget to be interesting and imaginative.

 

[payn]

When I hear classic I think of sword and sorcery. When I hear modern I think succinct, balanced, and elegant.

Many of the old school games I believe wanted to deliver a great experience, but design was still in its infancy. There has been much development on that front so you can have your random and enjoy it too. I'd point to Free League's Forbidden Lands as a good example. Basic fantasy tropes with just enough mechanics to make the game work. Supply die helps abstract the simulation of dungeon crawling without the painstaking bookkeeping. The narration style of the game moves it forward to the action so there is less set up to worry about. YMMV.

 

[TwoSix]

When I hear classic I think of sword and sorcery. When I hear modern I think succinct, balanced, and elegant.

Yea, I think "classic" is more a nod to genre than it is about particular rules designs. It's medieval fantasy, with elves and dwarves, and rough-and-ready adventurers plunging recklessly into the unknown.

No wacky races (with Dragonbane's mallards being grandfathered in ), and no class concepts that people aren't familiar with.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I would love something with the feel of FGU's Aftermath but playable without Excel and unlimited amounts of time.

 

[GMMichael]

. . . classic feel with a modern design.
What does that mean to you? What elements of game design are modern, and what elements are "classic"? How much of the game needs to be "modernized" for it to count as "class feel with modern design"? How much is too much and the "classic" part is lost?

First thought: "classic feel with modern design" is just something the marketers put in there. There's a big dollar for that.

Classic to me means lots of tables, character mortality, blue-grid maps, hexes, and four whole classes to choose from.

Modern design means fewer tables, character immortality, professional graphic design, hexes, and character design that doesn't revolve around classes.

 

[payn]

First thought: "classic feel with modern design" is just something the marketers put in there. There's a big dollar for that.

Classic to me means lots of tables, character mortality, blue-grid maps, hexes, and four whole classes to choose from.

Modern design means fewer tables, character immortality, professional graphic design, hexes, and character design that doesn't revolve around classes.

Meet in the middle and you get the classic with modern sensibility.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I'd argue that what generates the classic feel has more to do with adventure design (Appendix N) than with the system. Having fewer tables is nice, but I don't think tables have much to do with classic feel unless you are a grognard like me.

 

[Reynard]

Meet in the middle and you get the classic with modern sensibility.

That sounds an awful lot like compromise...

 

[SteveC]

I think it comes down to mechanics and design and then what you do in actual play.

Old-school design kind of isn't design. You have disconnected sub-systems that are designed to be compartmentalized. An attack roll is entirely different from a check to do something athletic or social. A skill system might use an entirely different system to resolve. Psionic powers? They have nothing to do with how we deal with magic. Those hodge-podge designs can be fun, but they also mean you have to invest significantly more in learning the game. If you know how to make an attack in 3E onward, you know how to do anything else task-related.

In terms of actual play, I think of old school as "You're on the border of civilization and there are all sorts of nasty things out there, what do you want to do?" Modern play to me is about a mix of different encounter types. In the Daggerheart game we're playing in, the game has been mostly social encounters. We've worked with the GM to create the environment we live in and what we're trying to do to fix a crisis situation.

Now of course there are games that don't fit that distinction. Runequest is almost as old as D&D and uses a consistent mechanic for everything you do. And Forbidden Lands is a modern game that hits the "go explore what's out there" mode of play despite being similarly consistent in game play. But when I think of the differences, that's what I see.