Where I play wuxia

I'm planning to run a wuxia marathon soon-ish. And it seems we're going to start with Fate, namely Jadepunk... although I'm planning to borrow mechanics from each game to enrich the others as well, as well as from a few others.
But we're starting with Jadepunk, So here is a pre-generated character, built to specifications.

Sokol of the Ten Virtues
I follow the word of Ehal, and bring the Twelve Virtues to Kausao. For two of them, I've got to teach by word, but people say I'm keeping to the other ten. So they named me Sokol of the Ten Virtues.
Not at all bad even for a priest of Ehal, which I am. By Kausao standards, it makes me nearly a saint. Although that makes me a saint whose name means "falcon", or sometimes "hero", in his native language...
...Such saints might be what Kausao needs. Yet how could any saint stand the current rulers, when the people suffer daily to enrich them?

BTW, Sokol really means "falcon", I modelled him to a great degree on a real person, including the way his Techniques work! Well, except I made him a bit less disciplined than the original.
And here's the thing about the 10 virtues. Imagine the Twelve Virtues of Ehal rated 1-5 Exalted-style, with 2 being the norm.
The guy has 3 to 5 in all of them, making them Major Virtues to him... except Mercy and Chastity, where he's got 1 in each, the equivalent of disadvantage. Hence, Falcon of the Ten Virtues is both a laudable thing, and a reminder there is stuff he fails worse than the ordinary.
Sokol of the Ten Virtues
Aristocrat 3
Fighter 2
Scholar2
Scoundrel 1
Explorer 1
Engineer 0

Portrayal: Unordained priest of Ehal, weak in chastity and mercy
Background: Immigrant would-be priest from a country conquered by the Naramel
Inciting Incident: I had to kill that guard!
Belief: The Light Of Ehal Shall Guide Us
Trouble: People think I'm Naramel, Naramel know I'm not

Technique: We call that just "dancing" at home! (Keyed to Background) Refresh 2
Flexible: Allows to use Aristocrat instead of Scoundrel to Create advantage
Exceptional: When you use an Advantage you created with this technique, each invocation gives you +3 to the roll.
Demanding: requires a Fair Aristocrat roll to dance well enough, if you miss the roll, you've used up your action for the turn
Situational: Only to Create Advantage actions

Ancient fighting techniques (Technique, duh!) Refresh 1 (Keyed to Background aspect)
Exceptional: On a defence, deal shifts of damage equal to your MoS.
Focus, Situational 2: Gain +1 to Fighter rolls, but only to Defend in combat and only when using a free invocation on an aspect
Demanding: A Fair Fighter roll

Undying Valor of Ehal (Keyed to Belief, Refresh 2)
Faith protects the warrior from harm and scatters his enemies
Harmful 3
Demanding: Requires a Fair Aristocrat roll for total confidence in Ehal
Situational: Only with the Attack action
(Yes, it's funny. But then, think about it, Sokol of the Ten Virtues could easily deal damage on defence rolls - so it makes sense for this PC).

The Fire Tongue of Ehal (Keyed to Portrayal) Refresh 1
Focus3, Situational2: Roll Aristocrat with +3 to Create Advantage, but only when talking about the faith - preaching or using ethical arguments to impress your opponent in a dispute.

Refresh:1

Now, I'm not really sure why you couldn't have Troubling or Aspects on a Technique. Seems to me I could easily have a Focus Technique: +2 Fighter against people trained in Kaiyumi (or Naramelite, Tuyangian, Aerish, created in modern Kausao, the curriculum taught to the guards) combat techniques. Using them would make the Kaiyumi (or whoever) pay you special attention, logically speaking.
But that's easily fixable by taking the appropriate Aspects, which I did. Yes, I need to Create Advantage first, but that's logical.
Heh, I think it's time for a real Naramel. Or maybe the Kayumi. There are 5 PCs, so I've got a choice.

Palladium's alignment system

I've recently noticed a brief outlook of Palladium's "alignment" system.

Unlike D&D, Palladium has no Neutral Alignment. Here are the available Alignments and BRIEF descriptions of them.


GOOD ALIGNMENTS: Principled & Scrupulous

Principled:
1. Always keep word
2. Avoids lies
3. Never kill OR attack unarmed foe
4. Never harm an innocent
5. Never torture
6. Never Kill for pleasure
7. Always help others
8. Works well with others
9. Respects authority, laws, self-dicipline and honor
10. Never betray a friend
11. Never break the law UNLESS conditions are desperate.

Scrupulous:
1. Keep word to any other GOOD person
2. Lie only to people of selfish or evil alignments
3. Never kill OR attack unarmed foe
4. Never harm an innocent
5. Never torture for pleasure, may use muscle to extract info. from criminals or evil people
6. Never Kill for pleasure, will always attempt to bring villains to justice alive even if evil
7. Always help others
8. Attempt to work within the Law whenever possible
9. Bends and occasionally break Laws when necessary.
10. Distrust Authority
11. Work with groups, but dislikes confining laws and Bureacracy (red tape)

SELFISH ALIGNMENTS: Unprincipled & Anarchist

Unprincipled
1. High regard for life and freedom
2. Keep word of honor
3. Lie & cheat if necesary (especially to Anarchists or evil persons)
4. Will not kill an unarmed foe (but will take advantage of one)
5. Help those in need
6. Not use torture unless absolutely necessary
7. Work with a group, especially if profitable
8. Never harm an innocent
9. Never kill for pleasure
10. Dislikes authority
11. Never betray a friend

Anarchist
1. May keep word
2. Lie & Cheat if he feels necessary
3. Not likely to kill an unarmed foe, but will certainly knockout, attack, or beat up one
4. Never kill an innocent, but may harm or kidnap
5. Not likely to help someone without ulterior motive
6. Seldom kill for pleasure
7. Use torture to extract info but not likely for pleasure
8. Doesn't work well in groups he will do as he d**n well pleases
9. Have little respect for self-discipline or authority
10. May betray a friend


EVIL ALIGNMENTS: Miscreant, Aberrant & Diabolic

Miscreant
1. Not necessarily keep his word to anyone
2. Lie & Cheat anyone
3. Most definitely attack an unarmed foe, they are the best kind
4. Use or Harm an innocent
5. Use torture for extracting info. and pleasure
6. May kill for sheer pleasure
7. Feels no compulsion to help without somekind of tangible reward
8. Work with others if it will help him attain personal goals
9. Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competitor
10. Has no deference to laws or authority, but will work within them if he must
11. Will betray a friend if it serves his needs.

Aberrant
1. Always keeps his word of honor
2. Lie & cheat those not worthy of his respect
3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe
4. Not kill an innocent particularly a child but will harm or kidnap
5. Never kill for pleasure
6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, nut torture, although distasteful, is necessary means of extracting info.
7. Never torture for pleasure
8. May or may not help someone in need
9. work with others to attain his goals
10. Respect honor and self-discipline
11. Never betray a friend

Diabolic
1. Rarely keeps word
2. Lie and cheat anyone
3. Most certainly attack or kill an unarmed foe
4. Use, harm and kill an innocent without a second thought for any reason
5. Use torture for pleasure and info.
6. Kill for pleasure
7. Likely to help someone only to kill or rob them
8. Not work well with groups. Consistently disregards orders to do as he pleases
9. Despise honor, authority, and self-discipline
10. Associate mostly with other evil alignments
11. Betray friends at anytime.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Kevin S. feels like Anarchists are a worse choice to associate with than Aberrant people. (Also, "nut torture" is totally the best type ever. It should be "but torture". And with one "t", before you ask!)
Source is here: http://gelvgoldenaxe.proboards.com/thread/23

Musings on Legend's setting (Dragon Warriors). On myth and RPGs, DW and Pendragon

The following was my answer to a request "how good is Dragon Warriors" on Myth Weavers. I think it's interesting enough to put here for those of you not frequenting this forum.

Legend undeniably a more gritty setting than most fantasy RPGs present (I refer to the majority of settings as "extra sugar added"). Roughly, think The First Crusade, except for some anachronisms, like plate armour existing already.
The take on the supernatural is also more folkloric. You could be an elf or dwarf, if you rolled just right (not much point in a halfling, you'd never progress past 3rd rank). It's quite likely nobody has seen an elf in living memory, though, so you're still a mysterious figure. (Though the author actually stated on his blog making non-humans playable was a mistake, and I agree heartily - in fact, the game would have only gained from excluding all magic classes or making them NPC-only, IMO).
As much as I can tell from reading the author's blog ( http://fabledlands.blogspot.com/ ), the intent was that non-humans don't have societies and don't follow our logic - or at least shouldn't, really, unless we mean normal or changed-by-magic but still normal beasts. But most aren't that, or shouldn't (the occasional Giant-created-by-ambitious-sorcerer is fine). These are familiar to anyone playing FRPGs, though.
The rest of them are more interesting. Theirs is the myth-logic, dream-logic like the Fair Folk in Exalted (though Dragon Warriors actually has a better system, which is doubly funny). The ghosts exemplify that best: they're not wailing on your door because they care whether you'd die soon. They're wailing on your door because they see Death approaching, and last they did, it came for them, then for their loved ones, and now it reminds them of those events of 100 years past nobody alive remembers. But there's a reason this ruin of a castle had remained a ruin! The souls of innocents want vengeance. And one night each year, they can get it. This night is approaching...
Or it could be a different reason. Depends on what has happened, not on what your standing among mortals is, but how much your personal circumstances follow the old story plaguing the ghost. (Ok - that's my take on ghosts, not necessarily the one in the book! The following is, however, strictly by-the-books by Serpent King).
In legend, even goblins aren't 1/2 HD monsters attacking you with rusty swords. They attack you with stealth, sorcery, sharp flying pieces of flint, and swords made of icicles. But if you capture them, they'd give you an oath to pay for their freedom, which they will carry to the letter. And woe to you if the letter of the contract allows them to read it to your detriment, because they will.
Hobgoblins add to that arsenal nets of spidersilk, and poisonous puffballs, the ability to make food in your pack rot, and turn your water into stale muck. They're summoning gusts of icy wind, turning the ground slippery with ice, and summoning packs of bats to attack you. These are the ones that aren't sorcerers, by the way.
Don't think "how do humans survive against such enemies", I made that mistake. They're not a neighbouring kingdom hiding in your forest! They're literally everything people are afraid of in the winter forest.
Similarly, orcs aren't barbarians that live somewhere. They're the barbarians that come in your village, grab anyone who didn't hide behind walls, and breach weak defences or retreat. They're, in a very politically incorrect way, the Other - but they're the Inimical Other that you really must be afraid of. They're the reason people are afraid of armed strangers!
Follow the dream-myth logic and it will bring you success. In fact, I'd give the same advice for the magic in Pendragon. Both games have their basis in myth, legend, superstitions, folk beliefs and oral tradition. Story trumps all, but it's not the GM's story I mean here. It's the story storytellers of ages past would be telling around fires in the dark nights while the wind is howling outside, seeking a way to enter the house and freeze you to death. Wolves are roaming under the walls of your castle, and being thrown out might be death sentence.
What stories would you tell if you were this storyteller? Tell them for Dragon Warriors. They're happening to the main characters, the PCs!
Now, I'm not saying this is well-explained in the new book. I'm not saying the system is perfect for it. I'm saying that in a way, it works great under that model, and the info in the Monster Compendium is enough for that. Just ignore the attempts at explaining where goblins are coming from...they're coming from the Forest. Doesn't matter where you live, it's the Forest. There's only one forest in the world, and it's the Forest. The humans name them differently for their own comfort.
You can bargain with fey creatures, of course. That's why there's an Elven King, and a Gnome King - or Gnome Chieftain, whatever seems right to the group. But these aren't mortal rulers. Going to their realm is literally stepping in another realm, and etiquette, good manners, a strong but compassionate heart and not giving your word lightly, and being careful with your phrasing will keep you alive better than any sword or spell.

So yeah, you can say it's a good, more folkloric setting. Or it might be just another oldschool setting. It really, really, really depends on you!

If you like chess, would you roleplay in order to play chess?

This is an answer to +John Wick 's post "Chess isn't an RPG". As such, I wrote it in second person... although I doubt he knows about my blog. Ah well. Sorry if the writing style bothers anyone.

Just in case +John Wick reads that: I had missed the original article, so couldn't be expected to express disagreement...I only noticed the follow-up. But hope that does count as a bit more than "UR wrong" with colourful language. Also please note, I'm not hiding behind Internet anonimity).

So, Mr. Wick, let me start by saying I disagree with your assessment of chess as an RPG. Well, at least I disagree partially.
I do think you're right that the way some games are played is unlike how roleplaying games are supposed to work.
I do agree that combat balance is only a part of it and is given too much spotlight in discussions. In fact, I think the best stories would have unbalanced combats.
There are things I disagree with, though, especially with the way you're presenting your arguments.
1) You can play CoC without roleplaying, as well as Vampire. I've seen it with Vampire. They're still roleplaying games. The criterion you're using about what isn't a roleplaying game isn't sound, IMO.
2) The definition of roleplaying games you're using doesn't cover the situation where the game isn't rewarding you for following your character's goals and motivations, but punishing you. Yet I'd tell you someting a character of mine said IC once (because what kind of a roleplaying post that would be if it didn't have some IC quote ;)?):
"You believe nonsense, kid, nonsense teachers have put in your head. The word doesn't turn around what you believe in. You can believe greatly in your righteousness, you can even be righteus - and still get killed by a ruffian who doesn't know right from wrong, nor cares about which one is on his side. You can be fighting to defend your love, and this not being a goddamn romance, you can still die and your love can perish along moments later. You can be a noble warrior, and get poisoned by your own country's leaders - history knows enough examples! Despite that, your heart is in the right place: you should act as you already do. Because that's how a man must act, in spite of the world trying to hurt you for not taking the easy way out. And now I'm going to teach you how to survive the spite of lesser men. The first truth of our school is to take the easiest approach: you've already made it hard enough for yourself coming to this moment."
Thing is, what he said was true in the system:- which wasn't giving any bonuses for pursuing what you believe in. He didn't even get any kind of Fate points out of being righteous. It wasn't mechanical, he just believed in it. Any fight he participated in had the possibility to kill him dead, too. Does it mean it wasn't a roleplaying game? In that case: I've had most of my best roleplaying sessions in non-roleplaying games, so what's the point of having roleplaying games?
3) You make it seem as if roleplaying is different from combat. Thing is, combat is part of roleplaying - you're just roleplaying the actions of an indicidual during a violent physical conflict (and before, and afrer-both of these being stuff some GMs forget, alas). The problem is the same as the problem you've got with the "Social" category in Vampire: when the players and GMs forget that it's not just an attack roll to cause pain, but getting into range, finding a moment for it and punching someone in the kidneys. It's not defence, it's grabbing someone by the ear and ripping it off before he gets the kidney shot.
Or, as stated in your post, it's not a defence, it's thumb-stabbing the big bruiser before he can get a hold of you. With your right thumb, of course. I mean, do you think that Presidio clip you published didn't involve playing a role? Because I'd disagree: it was very much playing a role, during a fight. That's why actors study stunt combat, and not because theatre goers are die-hard D&D fans who expect to see a fight for this session.
The solution to that, however, isn't to ban balanced combat systems. It's using a better combat system, one which makes it seem more real (or more whatever-it-is-supposed-to-be-like-in-the-genre). And if the system actually rewards roleplaying, my experience - especially from Exalted, Legends of the Wulin, DCC, Enemy gods, and Unknown Armies - says that players will roleplay.

So yeah, I guess my point is that you're idenytifying a problem right, but are mistaken about the reasons and your solution to the issue might suffer as a result. Personally, my approach lately has been to consider the rules, the reward system, the setting, the GM advice and the text itself in the book as more or less equal components. A great game aligns them all to do the same thing: to present a situation that's conductive to roleplaying.

New martial art for FWTD:a UFC-inspired MMA variant

It's what the title says. My current campaign is in the Fates Worse Than Death setting, so I'm working on martial arts styles for the system.
If anyone follows this blog, they might remember I made Capoeira. Well, turns out there was a Capoeira style in Hoodoo Blues, which uses the same system, so I might not have bothered...
But then there is more than one variant of Capoeira IRL as well, so I just have two variants now.
However, reviewing my own Capoeira variant (which was inspired by the Crane style, Snake Boxing and Tai Chi in the Tibet book-which also uses the same system as FWTD) , I came with an idea how to get the system to do what I want it to when it comes to representing street fights. Well, styles-wise. I'm not sure yet how to make it represent the random effects of damage without turning it into a random chart-heavy or narrrative system.

UFC-style MMA (Combat): Mainly taught by pit-fighters in more regulated bouts to prospective inheritor of the title, it's a style based on boxing, kickboxing and immobilization with a bit of wrestling thrown in. Gives the following:
-4 to Strike with hands or feet. Striking with feet/knees becomes Easy if the PC has grabbed the head/neck of the enemy or has him in a Wrestling Grab.
-4 to Grab: Pain. Grab: Pain becomes Easy if both combatants are on the ground (seating, kneeling or prone) and Very easy if both are on the ground and the PC has achieved a Wrestling Grab.
-8 to Grab: Strangulation. Grab: Strangulation becomes Easy if both combatants are on the ground (seating, kneeling or prone) and Very Easy if both combatants are on the ground and the PC has achieved a Wrestling Grab or Grab:Pain.
+0 to Grab: Wrestling
-4 Takedown. If the PC has a Grab: Wrestling, the Takedown is Easy
-4 Flip
Anyway, comments and suggestions would be appreciated! You might also post them on the Burn Immediately forum. I'm going to post this style there as well, in the FWTD sub-forum.

Women self-defense: is society going mad or just out of touch with reality?

This was originally a much, much longer post. Then I accidentally deleted it.
Well, here's my take on the "truisms" that are being spread in Women Self-Defense...circles.
It's borderline insane, people. No matter who you can persuade, it's insane - and especially if you do manage to persuade anybody, it's highly unethical to mislead people.Yes, I'm unfortunately (and uncharacteristically) serious.
Let me see the bullet points of mind-numbingly stupid assertions I've encountered lately. I'm at the point where I want to ask my friends living in English-speaking countries: WTF, people? What's wrong with...some people you are divided from by a common language?

• Rape is a societal problem, not a self-help problem.
  I mean, it is true-all crimes are societal problems! It's why we prohibit them, duh!
  But FUCK, NO - all crimes are self-help problems first and foremost, to the victim. Well unless you like being a victim. Who else do you count on being there? The predators know you could get help from the "flock". It's why they'd be trying to lead you astray - by charm or by force.
• The society should work only with the perpetrators and not "restrict the freedoms" of women (and men) that are at risk.
  Now, first, we DO work with the perpetrators. Haven't you noticed those prisons we've got for them? OTOH, that's not enough, because...you know what "social outcast" means, right? Well, most criminals are social outcasts, and THAT'S EXACTLY WHY the chance of society influencing them are...slim. Especially if the interaction only takes the form of punishment - and most countries take exactly this approach. For all I know, that's the dominant approach in the USA.
  Second, that's some IMMENSE bullshit-triggering statement in the second part of the sentence. Warning people that certain behaviours make you more likely to become a target AND less likely to defend yourself AND less likely to get the perpetrator convicted even in case of assault - well, that is giving them the right to an informed choice, not restricting their freedoms. They can still decide to go out and engage in all kinds of risky behaviours. They might even get away with it. There's just a lower chance.
• Turns out, anti-rape advice like "self-induced vomiting/pissing/shitting" and "telling him you're menstruating" is somehow...undignified? Sending the message women can't fight off an attacker. Oh, and it should be replaced with work with the perpetrators, either way. Because reasons. But God forbid that someone tells people a simple yet relatively efficient way of dealing with an assault they couldn't deal with otherwise. (Because it doesn't fit someone's political stance, is what I read in such statements.)
  First: getting raped is even less dignified. Forget dignity, forget fair play: what's next, telling women they should use their Tae Bo training to square off with an attacker for a couple rounds under boxing rules?
  Second, I've got news for you, darling: most men can't fight off an experienced criminal, either-because he's experienced at fighting, he's mentally prepared to be violent, he picks the time, he picks the place, and he picks a target he believes he can overwhelm. That's before weapons and surprise come into the equation - all factors that are unlikely to be on your side. Yes, the deck is stacked. That's why if you can avoid an assault (which is not a fistfight, these are different - but rapes are seldom fistfights), you do, and if you can't, you fight as dirty as possible.
  Third, no sane law enforcement would work ONLY with perpetrators. You work with them, with the potential victims, and if any, with the potential witnesses. And you give everybody advice they can follow RIGHT NOW. If any potential victim decides to train in self-defense, this is nice - but the law enforcement or college can't make you train.
  Worse: the same piece of advice was prescribing to women to use "the power of their own bodies"...which is fine, except it's not deescalation (removing the desire of the perpetrator to attack you). And deescalation is a priority in self-defence, while physical defence is a last-ditch option. Why? Because, as any good teacher of self-defense can tell you, it often fails - even if you're trained, see the factors above. (And who told you the assailant isn't trained? Seriously?)
  OTOH, telling a would-be rapist the menstruation part is removing his desire to rape, before he commits to overwhelming you.
  
• Telling women that being drunk comes with a special risk (note: not only women can be raped, and about 1/4 rapes are male-on-male, if I remember my statistics) means we are pepetuating a social climate that tolerates sexual predation. Therefore, telling young women to stay sober in order to avoid getting raped, sends the message that we do not intend to change that social climate. Obviously.
  No, just...no! I'm almost at a lack for words to explain just how out of touch with reality this idea might seem.
  Worse: that's shifting the blame of the second-to-worst kind: from the perpetrator to the people that are telling you "predators exist, always have, always will, it's a natural part of life. Keep that in mind, and keep in mind alcohol makes you more likely to be picked as target for a crime - anything for a mugging to a rape". These people are doing you a service.
  And besides, recognising the existence of threats isn't nearly the same as perpetuating the dynamic that leads to crimes. It's not recognising the existence of threats that makes crime more likely.
  Want proof? Well, imagine that we all agree it's awful to say such things, and from tomorrow, nobody, and I mean nobody, is telling young women (and men) "beware, monsters be there - they're doing something wrong, but that's why we call them monsters. Alcohol makes you less likely to spot them, less able to fight them off, and less likely to sue them successfully afterwards. Worse, they know that and are more likely to target you". Nope. We're not saying such awful, awful things any longer.
  Did you imagine it? Good.
  Now, does rape still happen in said society? Yes? Then how is your attitude helping people? By failing to warn them?
  And frankly, if you think rapists have just disappeared overnight, because people have decided not to talk about them...I have nothing to tell you, except: I don't want you in the education system, nor in the medical system, nor in the law enforcement, nor in any kind of church or any other shrine, nor in the media, nor anywhere else where your deluded ideas can influence children or the livelihood of people. Because you've just crossed the line from mistaken to dangerously deluded.

Now, don't get me wrong: getting people to focus on how things should be, instead of the way they are, is great for political activism. It totally sucks for helping people to avoid becoming victims. In fact, the people that are focused on how things "should" be (in their worldview...) are more likely to become victims.
Because the criminals don't share your worldviews, and they're looking for people that are in denial of the reality. They make for softer targets (as a rule of thumb).
Bottom line: politicising the matters of self-protection should be criminalised. IMO.
Now, people...what's wrong with the people that are saying those things?


P.S.: After writing this post, I found out that my worst suspicions have been true.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/09/feminists-freak-out-over-miss-nevada-suggestion-women-learn-self-defense-n1849213
Well, seems like at least some feminists think that the advice how to defend yourself is anti-women somehow. No, there isn't any (sane) logic to it.
Now, is self-defense a good solution to the problem of rape? Well, only if it's successful. But it makes it less likely.
Then why do I think people that support the "teach men not to rape" line are dangerous?
Simple: because they take what they wish for for possible. It's not. Rape isn't a cultural thing, despite the words "rape culture": it's opposed in any and all cultures I can think of. It's a crime.
So, have you seen a culture that has solved the issue of crimes in general? Even a specific kind of crime? A big city with no murders anywhere? No thefts? No muggings? No...whatever?
No. There ain't such a city. Therefore, rape will persist for the foreseeable future, too. And telling people that learning how to deal with it is "anti-women", or discarding good advice because it doesn't fit your political stance is... irresponsible at best.
I'm just hoping not all modern feminists hold to such ideas. Well, guess we'll see.

OK, it's final! "Schools" are more misleading than useful.

I was just wondering what games I like, whether I prefer old school or new school, or something in-between.
After some deliberation, I was surprised at the number of OSR and old school games that are among my favourites.
Scarlet Heroes and DCC take the lead. Then we follow, probably, with Spears of the Dawn, ACKS, Epées et Sorcellerie, Spellcraft and Swordplay, Backswords and Bucklers, Stars Without Numbers, and arguably even Crimson Blades and Lamentations of the Flame Princess should be there.
If we include old-school games in general, we add Grunts (Fantasy Fucking Vietnam minus the fantasy part) and 43 AD/Warband/Zenobia right next to Scarlet Heroes. And arguably any edition of Traveller, BRP, Flashing Blades and Dogtown should be right there as well. And Dragon Warriors, which I happen to like, even if the system could be improved.

And then we go forFates Worse Than Death and Hoodoo Blues, which are old-school in a good way. And my wife is younger than Pendragon, so the game definitely counts as old-school to me, as far as games go!

Okay, maybe I'm an old-school guy, reading the above...
Except I love WotG and LotW, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, Gods of Gondwane, TBZ, Houses of the Blooded, Enemy Gods, Fate and Shahida just as much, all of them being New School par excellence!
But I also like GURPS, RQ6, Savage Worlds, Artesia, Volant, TRoS, Seeker and Blue Planet, which are some kind of a middle-school. And Celestial Warriors, which is new-school in a different way. And post-GMC nWoD, which is also "middle school" in its own way...

In theory, I'm either the happy guy that can play everything (hah! Good luck getting me to play PF, just to name the example I turn down most often)...
...or we can conclude the distinction between "schools" to be absolute BS. In theory, my tastes should clash with at least some of these games, just on virtue of liking their polar opposites!
In practice, I like each of them for what they do well.
So, this is my conclusion for today. Find a game that does well whatever it does. Play it in a way that would make it shine. Laugh heartily at the idea that games come in "generations". Seriously, there is no difference, except in what was modern at the time!