Debating semantics, the second least useful thing possible to do.

I was playing in a 4E game a few years ago, and another player congratulated the DM on a session that was great because of DM judgment calls and openness of scenario "like the old days." Then he backed up to say that of course the old days were the bad days, we needed the hard rules of 4E to save us from the very flexibility he had just praised before some Political Correctness Censor in his brain kicked in.

It seems like a lot of folks -- including WotC's marketing dept. -- felt it necessary to put down the old in order to justify the new. This struck me as especially weird since it was riding on the brand value the old had created! If it really sucked, then wouldn't it make more sense to give the new and different thing a new and different name?

Anyway, when something becomes a Party Line where people happen to be, some number will parrot it without really giving it much coherent thought.

Quote from: Haffrung;846753Equally daft is the notion that anything new and innovative must be superficial and trendy.

 True!  But until some time passes and the smoke clears, it's had to tell.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846114The original game was based off fantasy war games, yes?  Then it changed because war gamers had their own version that a lot of the newer 'generation' didn't understand.  So it changed, one could say evolved to adapt to the way gamers were at the time.

One could also say it was dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamers. It would be just as accurate as saying the change was an evolution.

In other words both descriptions are shite trotted out to support the idiotic notion that one version is objectively better than another.

Quote from: Ravenswing;846225(scratches his head)

I don't quite understand the intense hostility to Christopher using "evolution" as a metaphor for how D&D -- and, really, the whole industry -- developed.

Because evolution is not being used to describe a biological-like process or a method of describing slow and gradual change from one design to another design. It is being used in the same way that some Victorians and all social Darwinists use the term evolution to describe a process that moves from crude, simple, less valuable entities or objects to elegant, complex, more valuable entities and objects. In other words it is not used descriptively, but is falsely used prescriptively.

Quote from: Pat;846665You have started using "adaptation" in more recent posts. For instance, "o it changed, one could say evolved to adapt to the way gamers were at the time" or "adapting to how people played because of experience or simply wanting something different" are reasonable uses of the evolution analogy.

But you didn't start there.[1][2] Good to see it cleared up, though.

Indeed. It would have saved a lot of electrons had Christopher not jumped down that rabbit hole with both feet nor taken so long to climb back out.

Quote from: Bren;847068One could also say it was dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamers. It would be just as accurate as saying the change was an evolution.

In other words both descriptions are shite trotted out to support the idiotic notion that one version is objectively better than another.

There you go again, shoving a bias against a word that effectively means change, and yes, growth (which is not always beneficial or 'good') to mean something it currently does not.

And I have to ask, if you keep wanting to use evolution to mean a biological change, why do people still use in context of say...  Language.  We often say that English has evolved from it's roots, for example.

Which makes me question, given that Bling-Bling, Honk, Beep and other words that were originally Onomatopoeia (AKA sound words) can we honestly say that those changes were for the better?

Again, I'm left wondering what sort of agenda you have against a single word?

I maintain that D&D and all other games, including Call of Cthulu, Tunnels and Trolls and Runequest have evolved over the years.  Not one of the new editions are objectively better than the other.  Subjectively, though, depends on who enjoys which.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847074There you go again, shoving a bias against a word

I've no bias regarding the word. I'm biased against people using the word to support their own agenda that certain changes in games made games better as opposed to simply different. Evolution has the context of progress, among other contexts, and the meaning that includes progress is frequently used in RPG discussions to "prove" that the newer game has evolved for the better. If you want to avoid that connotation, than I would suggest you just say that some RPGs have changed over time to provide a different game to serve different player desires. Its a neutral description of the process.

QuoteAnd I have to ask, if you keep wanting to use evolution to mean a biological change, why do people still use in context of say...  Language.  We often say that English has evolved from it's roots, for example.

Because people seldom argue that English is better now than it was in the time of Shakespeare. Though many people would agree that the standardization of spelling was a good thing and that the vocabulary of English continues to grow as new words are added so in those two sense, English evolving and evolving including the meaning of improvement and greater complexity is not a controversial statement about the English language. It might be more controversial about other languages, Greek for example, where simplification of the language has occurred.

QuoteAgain, I'm left wondering what sort of agenda you have against a single word?

I've stated that clearly. The part of my post you quoted outlines my objection. What part are you finding unclear or confusing?

Seems we're having an argument over connotation here.  I think Bren's right when he says that evolution, for most people, implies a desired change, especially if we think in terms of evolution as advantage. Then, too, I think of someone saying, "My views on _______ have evolved over time," which indicates, to me, that they've become more refined, and therefore -- for lack of a another word --"better."

That said, I also believe Christopher when he says he's using the word as a straight synonym, more or less, for the word "change."

So I think The defendant is absent malice. No harm, no foul.:-D

But seriously, I think if I had to label any one aspect of DnD as a positive change, it's the move tiward a unified task resolution mechanic--I was never a fan of "Roll high here, low there," etc.  I also think the move toward a simpler, less idiosyncratic version of the rules promotes greater accessibility, and I would call that an improvement, as well. The one thing I would never do, however, is drop the word "objectively" in anywhere, because thats how the really BIG arguments start.

Quote from: cranebump;847087But seriously, I think if I had to label any one aspect of DnD as a positive change, it's the move tiward a unified task resolution mechanic--I was never a fan of "Roll high here, low there," etc.  I also think the move toward a simpler, less idiosyncratic version of the rules promotes greater accessibility, and I would call that an improvement, as well. The one thing I would never do, however, is drop the word "objectively" in anywhere, because thats how the really BIG arguments start.

I personally think that an additive system was a good change.  It's easier for the human brain, apparently.  Or at least so I heard.

But I'll also concede that not everyone would like it.

Quote from: cranebump;847087That said, I also believe Christopher when he says he's using the word as a straight synonym, more or less, for the word "change."

I don't.

Look at his earlier posts. For instance, here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=845939&postcount=71

Notice how he mentions things like "mother nature", "mutations", and even makes an analogy to the appendix. Clearly a reference to biological evolution, even if it's an incorrect use of the word. Because he also says things like "some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical", and denigrating the old in favor of the new is one of the most insidious and hard-to-stamp out fallacies about biological evolution.

Or here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846040&postcount=82

Where he not only quotes a definition that includes "development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding" as synonyms (clearly, another use of evolution in the false sense of an an upward arrow), but he makes another reference to the biological definition, while attacking someone else for being unscientific: "Have you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is? Or am I talking to a 'creationist'?"

Then look at more recent posts, like this one:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846586&postcount=138

Notice how he completely denies what he said in his other post. ("That is not how I was using the term, I was using Evolution to mean Adaptation.") He's now defining evolution as change, which is correct (enough). That would have been a good place for him to stop.

But he doesn't. Here's a more recent example:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=847074&postcount=154

Where he pretends he never used evolution in the biological sense at all ("if you keep wanting to use evolution to mean a biological change..."), and actually starts blaming other people ("I'm left wondering what sort of agenda you have against a single word?").

Of course, even in that post, he slips and uses the term in a biologically determinist fashion ("that effectively means change, and yes, growth"). (No, it doesn't.)

It's basically this argument:

"The sky is orange."
"No it's not, it's blue."
"I said the sky is blue, I don't see what your problem is."
"No, you didn't. You said it was orange."
"I don't know why everyone is picking on me. I clearly said the sky is blue."
"Sigh."
"Now, as I was saying, the sky is orange...."

He's changed his argument so many times the whole thread is spinning.

Quote from: cranebump;847087But seriously, I think if I had to label any one aspect of DnD as a positive change, it's the move toward a unified task resolution mechanic--I was never a fan of "Roll high here, low there," etc.  I also think the move toward a simpler, less idiosyncratic version of the rules promotes greater accessibility, and I would call that an improvement, as well. The one thing I would never do, however, is drop the word "objectively" in anywhere, because thats how the really BIG arguments start.

Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

Quote from: vini_lessa;847188Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

How do you test that, and what metrics do you use? What games have been compared, and what are the quantitative results?

Yes, some forms of math (like addition) are known to be easier than others (like subtraction). But I've never seen a solid, comparative analysis that directly applies to the RPG world.

For instance, a lot of people cite the d20 system for being superior to OD&D because it uses addition to determine whether an attacker hits, while OD&D uses subtraction.

Which is argument based on false premises. OD&D does not use subtraction. It uses a table lookup, and so does AD&D 1st edition. Which is easier, cross-indexing a table or adding two-digit numbers? And what studies support that assertion?

Until that's nailed down, it's not objective. It's just an opinion. And a poorly supported one.

Quote from: vini_lessa;847188Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

Presentation - Subjective
Easiness use and learn - Subjective
Speed of play - Subjective
Accomplishment of stated goals - Subjective

What I might love, you might hate.
What I might find easy to play, you might find really difficult.
I might know all the tables off by heart and be able to work out TCAH0 in my head, you might struggle with and have to look up tables all the while.
Unless the stated goals are "Allowing you to play a roleplaying game", I can't see what use they are. Also, I might think that the game achieves its goals and you might not.

Empirically, if you polled a thousand people and took the results, then that might give a view, but any one individual's opinions will be entirely subjective.

Quote from: soltakss;847201Presentation - Subjective
Easiness use and learn - Subjective
Speed of play - Subjective
Accomplishment of stated goals - Subjective

What I might love, you might hate.
What I might find easy to play, you might find really difficult.
I might know all the tables off by heart and be able to work out TCAH0 in my head, you might struggle with and have to look up tables all the while.
Unless the stated goals are "Allowing you to play a roleplaying game", I can't see what use they are. Also, I might think that the game achieves its goals and you might not.

Empirically, if you polled a thousand people and took the results, then that might give a view, but any one individual's opinions will be entirely subjective.

Hush, you and your "knowing what words actually mean,"

Quote from: Pat;847196How do you test that, and what metrics do you use? What games have been compared, and what are the quantitative results?

That was going to be the gist of my response, but you beat me to it, and covered the issue better than I ever could. Thanks! :-)

Quote from: Pat;847185I don't.

Look at his earlier posts. For instance, here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=845939&postcount=71

Notice how he mentions things like "mother nature", "mutations", and even makes an analogy to the appendix. Clearly a reference to biological evolution, even if it's an incorrect use of the word. Because he also says things like "some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical", and denigrating the old in favor of the new is one of the most insidious and hard-to-stamp out fallacies about biological evolution.

Or here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846040&postcount=82

Where he not only quotes a definition that includes "development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding" as synonyms (clearly, another use of evolution in the false sense of an an upward arrow), but he makes another reference to the biological definition, while attacking someone else for being unscientific: "Have you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is? Or am I talking to a 'creationist'?"

Then look at more recent posts, like this one:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846586&postcount=138

Notice how he completely denies what he said in his other post. ("That is not how I was using the term, I was using Evolution to mean Adaptation.") He's now defining evolution as change, which is correct (enough). That would have been a good place for him to stop.

But he doesn't. Here's a more recent example:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=847074&postcount=154

Where he pretends he never used evolution in the biological sense at all ("if you keep wanting to use evolution to mean a biological change..."), and actually starts blaming other people ("I'm left wondering what sort of agenda you have against a single word?").

Of course, even in that post, he slips and uses the term in a biologically determinist fashion ("that effectively means change, and yes, growth"). (No, it doesn't.)

It's basically this argument:

"The sky is orange."
"No it's not, it's blue."
"I said the sky is blue, I don't see what your problem is."
"No, you didn't. You said it was orange."
"I don't know why everyone is picking on me. I clearly said the sky is blue."
"Sigh."
"Now, as I was saying, the sky is orange...."

He's changed his argument so many times the whole thread is spinning.

Hmmmm, I see...Senator Brady, your response?