I think games do develop and can certainly improve over time. But I also think there is a lot more subjectivity in judging the quality of rpg design than say motor design. I also think not all evolution is objectivley better. Sometimes new developments are just fads that peope regret down the road. I would compare game design more to something like music rather than cars.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665306Was not the game added to by Most Holy EGG?  .

I'm pretty sure The Ent has never glorified or enshrined Gygax.  Comments like this tell me you have no desire to actually have a conversation.

Steam engines haven't gone out of style - they use them on aircraft carriers.   But evolution doesn't always mean improvement in a meaningful way.  A rooster is probably not superior to a T Rex, but that's how evolution works sometimes.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;665340Steam engines haven't gone out of style - they use them on aircraft carriers.   But evolution doesn't always mean improvement in a meaningful way.  A rooster is probably not superior to a T Rex, but that's how evolution works sometimes.

Dinosaur tastes like chicken.

Quote from: Sommerjon;665304And if you played tsr with a grid, what happened then?

My groups would try that every few years. It seldom lasted more that a session or two. Why?

1) Grid Combat ended up taking far longer than the GM and most players wanted.

2) Grid Combat required people to study and learn much more detailed rules than many of my players were interested in. Remember, in TSR D&D, no one but the DM needs to actually learn many rules to play well. Many players in my games never read the rules and have no interest in doing so.

3) No one owned many minis nor did anyone with the money to buy them and the time, interest, and skill to paint them have any interest in buying and painting them. Cardboard chit markers worked well, but tended to turn off the players who most enjoyed grid-style combat.  

QuoteKnowing the Dm's likes and dislikes, knowing when to do something outrageous or sticking to the mundane, knowing your DM.  How to stroke the ego of the Dm is also system mastery.  People here who deny this is even possible are deluding themselves.

It certainly a form of mastery, but it does not require the owning and studying of game books between play sessions. As it has nothing to do with mastering the "system" (aka the rules  mechanics), calling it system mastery just doesn't seem to make much sense.

QuoteWait, what?  You haven't even played it yet you know "It is a tactical skirmish game"?  When all those players out there who did play tsr D&D with miniatures on a gameboard, was that also 'a tactical skirmish game'?

I'm not Haffrung, but I played in 4 long sessions of 4e a few months after it came out. It was a series of tactical skirmish boardgames (each taking 45 to 90 minutes to play) with a bit of non-combat stuff (taking 5 or 10 minutes on average) between those tactical skirmishs. I was bored out of my gourd, as were most of the people I was playing with (and these were 3e players, not old school gamers). While I can see how people who want this out of D&D would love it as it was very well done, I don't want tactical skirmish boardgame in the middle of my RPG sessions. And even more so than 3e, that's what 4e required.

I'm fine with anyone stating what they want out of an RPG, as long as they don't think what they want out of an RPG is somehow a superior form of play.

The crap I normally think is bullshit is the "THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES RPGS GREAT" kind of stuff. Its like "OH GOD, THEY DON'T ENJOY THE SAME THINGS AS ME, SO THEY OBVIOUSLY JUST DON'T GET IT GOOOOD, /hipsterfagbullshit"

Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I've seen this argument a lot, especially in regards to Next.  There is this pervasive argument that any attempt by Next to emulate AD&D (or B/X or even 3e for that matter) is purely nostalgic, and not based on good design.

Speaking not of D&DNext, but generally:-

It's not either/or, it's both. We are nostalgic for good game design.

RPGs are like sex, enthusiasm is more important than skill. And many of the early rpgs like many of the self-published ones since are simply dripping with enthusiasm; the games designed by committee in large companies rather less so. An enthusiastically-written rpg will be more interesting than one written by people who are bored and cynical about it all. This is why Rifts is still popular, and GURPS4e is not.

Nostalgia and good design are not mutually exclusive. I just wish that Next was cribbing more from well-designed old editions (RC) and not so much from badly designed old editions (3E).

Quote from: Piestrio;664346It's not that they're stupid/evil/etc... it's just that they have failed to see what makes RPGs unique and fun in the first place and so they judge them based on the criteria of other games.

So we're just ignorant then. That's much better!

No, I understand rather well what makes RPGs unique and fun in the first place. It really clicked with me the very first time I played with a good DM and found the freedom to make choices in character so liberating compared to the 'what skill do I use now' of CRPGs.

I just happen to think that this uniqueness is not mutually exclusive with any of the design philosophy of 4E.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;665460I just happen to think that this uniqueness is not mutually exclusive with any of the design philosophy of 4E.

Sure. There is role-playing in 4e. Absolutely.

It's just squeezed into the time ghetto to make room for 1-3 hour "board game breaks" in the middle of the session.

Quote from: Piestrio;665462Sure. There is role-playing in 4e. Absolutely.

It's just squeezed into the time ghetto to make room for 1-3 hour "board game breaks" in the middle of the session.

Well, going by that definition, Game of Thrones Board Game achieves roleplaying on a better level - you play a bastard all the time you're playing that game.

Quote from: Rincewind1;665463Well, going by that definition, Game of Thrones Board Game achieves roleplaying on a better level - you play a bastard all the time you're playing that game.

There is a lot of truth there. Lots of board games have RPG elements baked in (or just put in by players). Arkham Horror, Defenders of the Realm, Battlestar Galactica, Heroquest, etc...

Some people really like this. Some people don't.

Likewise some RPGs have boardgame elements baked in (or added by the players). D&D 4e, some storygames, etc...

Some people really like this. Some people don't.

And then some people refuse to believe that there is really anything different about 4e (that's not better). 4e is unique among  the versions of D&D in how much it embraced the "game" part of RPG.

This is what attracted it's fans in the first place. They all agreed that this is what made 4e awesome. But now, all of a sudden, it's all "No, 4e is totally just like every other version of D&D, how dare you suggest there are any meaningful differences!1!1!1"

Quote from: Piestrio;665465

There is a lot of truth there. Lots of board games have RPG elements baked in (or just put in by players). Arkham Horror, Defenders of the Realm, Battlestar Galactica, Heroquest, etc...

Some people really like this. Some people don't.

Likewise some RPGs have boardgame elements baked in (or added by the players). D&D 4e, some storygames, etc...

Some people really like this. Some people don't.

And then some people refuse to believe that there is really anything different about 4e (that's not better).

Indeed, but while some boardgames achieve this...I don't want to use "enforced" as a term, I'd rather go with organic roleplaying by design (and some RPGs also do - Pendragon for example) - though in case of board games it's more focused around generating a specific feeling of play rather than actual role playing - there is a different mindset that comes with board games, that allows for that feeling to arise in certain board games, but at the same time - some other roleplaying opportunities do not generally rise.

What I mean by that babble is - in my whole life, I've never bothered to try and "get in the character" during a boardgame. When I play Starks in GoT, I don't give a damn about honour or that Lannisters killed my father. When I play Twilight Imperium, I don't really care that our races might've had a genocidal past, I'll sign a trading contract with you. When I'm playing BSG, I'm not going to trust you more because lore - wise, I'm banging you.

And that's in a way, a certain beauty of RPGs - they evoke sometimes the feelings in us that are detrimental to our plans. But such feelings are very, very human at the same time. I mean, Tywin's life would be a lot easier (and SPOILERS) if he accepted Tyrion as a rightful heir to his intellect.

In a way, this is my gripe with 4e, as well as 3e really - the need to plan out of character during combat and during character creation (the latter caused by need for optimization). I would take the feat Honourable as Robb Stark, but Power Attack is just a better option.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;665340But evolution doesn't always mean improvement in a meaningful way.  A rooster is probably not superior to a T Rex, but that's how evolution works sometimes.

It is far superior at surviving.

Games do not evolve into games, they evolve into beautiful memes that fly out as energy into space and are picked up by alien civilizations who then fight galaxy spanning wars over which alignment Batman would be.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;665460Nostalgia and good design are not mutually exclusive. I just wish that Next was cribbing more from well-designed old editions (RC) and not so much from badly designed old editions (3E).

I think there's a lot to like in 3E. There's just too much of it. Stripped to its bare bones, 3E is a sound structure to build a D&D system around.

And ignoring 3E and going back to the RC as the basis of Next has two problems:

1) Now you've alienated not only the 4E fans, but the 3E fans as well.
2) How much can you really do with RC and still make it a distinct, new game?

Quote from: TomatoMalone;665460No, I understand rather well what makes RPGs unique and fun in the first place. It really clicked with me the very first time I played with a good DM and found the freedom to make choices in character so liberating compared to the 'what skill do I use now' of CRPGs.

I just happen to think that this uniqueness is not mutually exclusive with any of the design philosophy of 4E.

Whatever the design philosophy, from the 4E adventures I've seen, the fixed and highly detailed tactical encounter is the basic unit of the game. That makes it very difficult to foster flexibility and improvisation in play. If the PCs ally with certain monsters, or lure some out of their lair, of bypass them entirely, you've rendered most of the adventure material - those detailed, carefully calibrated encounter scenarios - useless.

Quote from: Piestrio;665465And then some people refuse to believe that there is really anything different about 4e (that's not better). 4e is unique among  the versions of D&D in how much it embraced the "game" part of RPG.

This is what attracted it's fans in the first place. They all agreed that this is what made 4e awesome. But now, all of a sudden, it's all "No, 4e is totally just like every other version of D&D, how dare you suggest there are any meaningful differences!1!1!1"

Yeah, the most bizarre thing about edition warring is how you can never claim edition x isn't good at y because, defenders assert, you can do anything with edition x. Which makes WotC a genius of a company, because they've sold the same game over and over again.

And being system-wanks, a lot of 4E fans are worse about this than others. They love how 4E is a focused, tight design, but won't stand for any notion that this might make it less flexible.

Quote from: Haffrung;665497Yeah, the most bizarre thing about edition warring is how you can never claim edition x isn't good at y because, defenders assert, you can do anything with edition x. Which makes WotC a genius of a company, because they've sold the same game over and over again.

And being system-wanks, a lot of 4E fans are worse about this than others. They love how 4E is a focused, tight design, but won't stand for any notion that this might make it less flexible.

I've taken to calling 4e Schrödinger's edition because it's nature seems to shift based on the rhetorical needs of the particular argument the 4venger finds themselves in.

The two stand-outs that pop up time and time again are:

"4e is JUST LIKE ALL D&Ds EVAR because I can play a thief who backstabs a goblin in a dungeon!"

and

"4e is TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN EVERY OTHER D&D because of objectively better 'game design', 'fun' and 'math', all other D&Ds are broken unfun messes"