Quote from: Prisoner_of_Nostalgia;655907The bearing this all has on nostalgia is that pretty much every objection to tthe black outfit was rooted in "I used to love Spider-man as a kid and this new costume is a major change for me so I don't like it!".

It seems to me that you are nostalgic for the old black costume.

I would like to comment on this statement; as a fan of 1E dnd, I will fairly state my opinions. Is it really bad design? I think it is debatable.

Quote from: Prisoner_of_Nostalgia;656123What bothers me is the objectively bad DESIGN.

The whole 'saving throw' system, the bizarre hit points that increase with levels system.
The absurd rationalization for why hit points increase with level.
The horrible 'fire and forget' magic system that does not represent magic in the sword and sorcery genre and is instead nonsensically based on terrible books by Jack Vance.
The nonsensical 'wearing heavy armor makes you harder to be hit' system.
The inconsistent multiple dice systems such as 'percentile system for thieves abilities, d6 system for dwarves detecting traps underground, the d20 combat etc.
It is just bad but few will say so because they are familiar with it. They were brought up on D&D and have fond memories of sitting around a table with friends playing (we all have such memories) and we humans have a natural aversion to change.

Ok,

Saves: I like saving throws. 1E dnd is heavily based on the characters class and level being ultra significant. The saves support this, and stats do modify saves. Where I would find fault is the effects of saves can be too lethal for some players comfort zone.

Hit points: My logical side does not really prefer HP over a more detailed wound system. However, and it a big deal for me, I appreciate the simplicity of abstract HP, and how it is less cumbersome.

HP increasing with level is not rationalization, its abstract. A high level fighter has more HP because he is more skilled and experienced at all manner of combat. Again, my logical side prefers parry/evade type mechanics, but, its abstract to keep the game from being too cumbersome.

Memorizing spells: I prefer the spontaneous casting concept of 3X. I also dislike the descriptor of actually forgetting a spell when cast. However, the spell book and memorizing mechanics work well as a game mechanic. I am also a huge fan of the 'chance to learn a spell'; (Chance to know is the single greatest thing I miss when I do 3X.)

Armor as harder to hit': Its abstract, they just use to hit as a convenient word. Again, I prefer 'dodgyness and DR style armor' to be separate. But, the 1E armor represents the armor making you harder to harm; its not literally making you harder to hit in a dodgy manner.

Multiple die systems: I don't really like too many multiple die roll systems in the same game. But, I cut 1E some slack because the game is so freaking' old.
 


Now, I will say that I was 'raised' on 1E dnd, so some bias is natural.

However, the more I played 3X (3.0/3.5/Pathfinder) The more I realized 1E works better for me. Its simply more fun for me despite the quirky rules.

Here's the problem I have with comments that say OD&D was objectively bad design.  That's only really true if you hold them against today's standards, which is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.  It's like saying that a TV made in the 60s is a horrible design, because you're comparing it to TVs of today.  OD&D was revolutionary for it's time.  And compared to similar type games of that time (in regards to editing, materials, etc), it wasn't any worse.  There wasn't Photoshop or computer layout software that was used.  So comparing it to a modern product is a faulty comparison, IMO.

What was it designed to do?  Give players the rules and tools needed to enjoy playing role-playing games, and increase the interest in the newly founded hobby.  In those measurements, OD&D was hugely successful.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;656156Here's the problem I have with comments that say OD&D was objectively bad design.  That's only really true if you hold them against today's standards, which is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.  It's like saying that a TV made in the 60s is a horrible design, because you're comparing it to TVs of today.  OD&D was revolutionary for it's time.  And compared to similar type games of that time (in regards to editing, materials, etc), it wasn't any worse.  There wasn't Photoshop or computer layout software that was used.  So comparing it to a modern product is a faulty comparison, IMO.

What was it designed to do?  Give players the rules and tools needed to enjoy playing role-playing games, and increase the interest in the newly founded hobby.  In those measurements, OD&D was hugely successful.

OD&D is very similar to many firsts.
the parallels to Magic the gathering are huge.
When MtG came out it was an entirely new thing the fame and popularity of which spread by word of mouth. It was like OD&D "lightning in bottle" to purloin one of Ben's favorite turn's of phrase.
Like OD&D MtG was flawed. Some rules didn't work well when exposed to 'market forces'. Like OD&D MtG needed a couple of revisions.

The main difference of course is that whilst both games added complexity MtG was able to clear away the old and present a cleaned up version that really did simplify but left a modular sltructure where new transitory ideas could be tried out for a year or 18 months. D&D never had that luxury as the game is open to the imagination so any one can create infinite variations be they in adventure design, new settings, classes races etc. without the physical things, and rule books are just collections of ideas and anyone can have ideas, there is no way to control D&D and therefore because everyone can create infinite variations no one can decide on the best way to do a thing. For some reason there is a conservatism, represented by some in the OSR who want to calcify the game in a past state which is odd because it seems to me to be entirely antagonistic to the origins of D&D and owes more to the attempt to exert creative and importantly financial control that occurs with AD&D as the "official game" for tournaments etc.  

I love the way the Mtg guys play with ideas and develop concepts but the homebrewer in me rebels against the control. We played our own CCG which I wrote and designed cards for and it kept us in weekly games for 2 years a sign that I can't help but to tinker.  If I had desgned MtG I would have made rules for constructing your own cards and then allowed people to do that and it would never had made any money

Quote from: Prisoner_of_Nostalgia;656123Success in terms of sales does not counter this at all for reasons I have already gone over. If the argumentum ad populum was valid then the best musicians would be boy bands and the best food would be McDonalds.

Success in terms of sales of what you consider a "poor design" over the sales of what you consider a "good design", does mean that some factor or factors you did not consider make the "poor design" a better game for those actually playing it, however.

To give an example from another field....Few people will argue that the Betamax format was better than the VHS format in videotapes, yet many more people decided to buy a the "inferior design" of the VHS machine, because VHS machines and tapes were less expensive and the recording length of VHS tapes were longer. Costs less to buy and use, and ability record longer TV movies on one tape were obviously more important to the majority of those using early consumer videotape machines than better technical design and specs.

Just as TSR D&D (in spite of its supposed poor design) is better (than WOTC D&D, especially 4e) for those who want a D&D game with things like fast character creation that requires little system knowledge and no system mastery;  fast, abstract combat that does not need minis, grids, etc.; does not require much rules knowledge to play and enjoy; and has a lot of published support material for a wide variety of play styles.

QuoteWhat bothers me is the objectively bad DESIGN.

Much of your list seems to be subjective, not objective. (Note: IMHO, most RPG design theory is subjective as little of it can proven through objective tests.)

QuoteIt is just bad but few will say so because they are familiar with it. They were brought up on D&D and have fond memories of sitting around a table with friends playing (we all have such memories) and we humans have a natural aversion to change.

People change to things they consider better than what they have all the time -- but it actually has to be noticeably better for them and their needs, not just better in design theory according to design experts. People moved from vinyl records to CDs and then to mp3 (and other digital formats) because each move improved things for them with very little time wasted learning how to use the new system.  The same with going from CRTs to flatscreens (both as TVs and as computer monitors) and with moving from videotape to DVDs. Moving from DVDs to Blu-Ray is not going as fast, however, because the improvement (although definitely there) isn't noticeable enough for many people to  justify buying expensive new equipment and spending money replacing their DVD collection with new Blu-Ray versions.

Most people move to new versions of D&D not because they are designed better according to design theory, but because they provide a better experience for their style of play.  While WOTC editions of D&D may be designed much better (especially 4e) according to current favorite design theories, I tried them and rejected them -- not because I refuse to change -- but because neither 3.x or 4e provide a better experience than TSR D&D for what I want out of a D&D system. In fact, they do not even meet some of the criteria I consider important (fast character design, fast abstract combat, no need for much system knowledge let alone system mastery, etc.)

Why should I spend my money buying or my limited time learning a version of D&D than design theory people consider a "good design" that does not even come close to providing the experience I want from D&D?  Fond memories/nostalgia have nothing to do with this decision, the fact is the supposedly "better designed" versions of D&D to not provide the style of play I enjoy and instead best support styles of play that bore me to tears.

For most users, a great design (according to design theory) that does not meet their user needs will lose to a poor design (according to design theory) that manages to meet their user needs.  Design theory people may hate this and try to blame the user, but that doesn't change the fact that "good design according to theory" is very much less important to most people than "best meets my needs".

Quote from: jibbajibba;656177The main difference of course is that whilst both games added complexity MtG was able to clear away the old and present a cleaned up version that really did simplify but left a modular sltructure where new transitory ideas could be tried out for a year or 18 months. D&D never had that luxury as the game is open to the imagination so any one can create infinite variations be they in adventure design, new settings, classes races etc. without the physical things, and rule books are just collections of ideas and anyone can have ideas, there is no way to control D&D and therefore because everyone can create infinite variations no one can decide on the best way to do a thing.

While I agree with your conclusion about D&D, there is another reason while D&D never followed the MtG path (and has generally failed when WOTC tried):  MtG is a competitive game and everyone recognizes that competitive games need standard, clear rules that everyone plays by. RPGs are non-competitive pastimes. It really does not really matter if the rules vary from one set of players to another. Players sitting down to play MtG are playing a card game, not playing in a independent setting/world that may share little in common with the world/setting of those playing at other tables in the room other than the name of the game system.

QuoteFor some reason there is a conservatism, represented by some in the OSR who want to calcify the game in a past state which is odd because it seems to me to be entirely antagonistic to the origins of D&D and owes more to the attempt to exert creative and importantly financial control that occurs with AD&D as the "official game" for tournaments etc.

Most of the OSR isn't like that. What unites the OSR isn't a desire to enforce one style of play or one official set of rules, but a desire to make sure that what is now considered "old school" rules and play styles are available to any who are interested in them. Sure, there are some "OSR Taliban" people who believe that there is only one true set of rules and only one true way to play with those rules, but they are a minority of the OSR, just a loud minority.

My Microlite74 has a lot of modern design features -- enough that some of the "OSR Taliban" people refuse to consider it old school at all. Their open disgust with M74 hasn't stopped it from becoming a fairly popular "0e-type" gamesystem amongst old school players.

The worst thing about D&D is, that it started the whole "edition threadmill" model, where instead of trying to refine previous idea and serve them in more presentable, accessible and orderly form, each next edition was essentially reinventing the game.

Quote from: Rincewind1;656184The worst thing about D&D is, that it started the whole "edition threadmill" model, where instead of trying to refine previous idea and serve them in more presentable, accessible and orderly form, each next edition was essentially reinventing the game.

Only with WoTC.  TSR era D&D is largely backwards compatible with very little tweaking.

QuoteFor some reason there is a conservatism, represented by some in the OSR who want to calcify the game in a past state which is odd because it seems to me to be entirely antagonistic to the origins of D&D and owes more to the attempt to exert creative and importantly financial control that occurs with AD&D as the "official game" for tournaments etc.

Quote from: RandallS;656182Most of the OSR isn't like that. What unites the OSR isn't a desire to enforce one style of play or one official set of rules, but a desire to make sure that what is now considered "old school" rules and play styles are available to any who are interested in them. Sure, there are some "OSR Taliban" people who believe that there is only one true set of rules and only one true way to play with those rules, but they are a minority of the OSR, just a loud minority.

I agree with this. Beyond playing one of the classic edition of D&D or one of its variants there is nothing that applies to the OSR as a whole. Anything else applies only to a specific individual or group.

Quote from: Rincewind1;656184The worst thing about D&D is, that it started the whole "edition threadmill" model, where instead of trying to refine previous idea and serve them in more presentable, accessible and orderly form, each next edition was essentially reinventing the game.

During the early days of the OSR the idea of "progress" of in the design of RPGs was a major point of contention when trying to explain what everybody was doing to newcomers. TSR/Wizards/White Wolf marketing has so ingrained the idea that RPG are upgraded similar to software that when you are looked as if you had two heads when you talk about playing or publishing for classic D&D.

It not as much of an issue today as the circle of OSR publishers and players has grown into a sizable niche within the hobby. But there are more than a few that are sensitive to criticism because of all the initial scorn that was heaped one fans of the classic editions.

Now "Old School" is becoming a bit of a fad with people tagging just about anything as old school in order to catch the wave.  I don't really care about this and only point that there is good reasons why alternatives to classic D&D existed and why D&D 3.X was well-received. Many gamers like character customization, character detail, and tactical detail in their campaigns. Classic D&D is not a one size fits all game but just one of many alternatives.

Quote from: estar;656194During the early days of the OSR the idea of "progress" of in the design of RPGs was a major point of contention when trying to explain what everybody was doing to newcomers. TSR/Wizards/White Wolf marketing has so ingrained the idea that RPG are upgraded similar to software that when you are looked as if you had two heads when you talk about playing or publishing for classic D&D.

It not as much of an issue today as the circle of OSR publishers and players has grown into a sizable niche within the hobby. But there are more than a few that are sensitive to criticism because of all the initial scorn that was heaped one fans of the classic editions.

Now "Old School" is becoming a bit of a fad with people tagging just about anything as old school in order to catch the wave.  I don't really care about this and only point that there is good reasons why alternatives to classic D&D existed and why D&D 3.X was well-received. Many gamers like character customization, character detail, and tactical detail in their campaigns. Classic D&D is not a one size fits all game but just one of many alternatives.

I should extrapolate that it'd be perhaps better to make those new rpgs a new game in it's own right, or an alternative edition, rather than a new edition per se. Of course, there are economic problems - but I'd say that leaving support in hands of fans'd work anyway, rather than cause edition wars and splitting goodwill towards you.

On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure halting entirely RPGs' progress, by which I mean - trying to work from established mechanics, rather than reinvent them - is such a good idea. BRP is a mixed bag for me. The BRP sourcebooks themselves looks like a great example how to make it work, as you have the same core but with more and more options added in every new edition, but CoC, on the other hand, is essentially reprint with a handful of new spells added (in 6e it was the Voodoo magic spells I believe), which is a bit unsatisfying. I actually like what I've seen of CoC 7e, as they seem to steamline the system greatly - so far the only things remiss would be the attributes, which'd be entirely shifted into percentage value, from which change little'd be lost, given how I and most people rolled usually with Opposed Checks, rather than using Resistance/Opposed Checks table (which was only really useful for Poison Checks).

Quote from: Rincewind1;656196I should extrapolate that it'd be perhaps better to make those new rpgs a new game in it's own right, or an alternative edition, rather than a new edition per se.

Game companies that cater to chess players handle international chess versus variations. They don't tell international chess players that their game sucks and cease selling them. They sell both side by side.

Quote from: Rincewind1;656196On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure halting entirely RPGs' progress, by which I mean - trying to work from established mechanics, rather than reinvent them - is such a good idea.

I think how Stephen Cole of Armadillo is handling the varying version of Star Fleet Battles. Rather than say to SFB players that their game sucks and cease publishing or supporting it. They instead came out with Federation Commander which is way more novice friendly. And now they sell the two games side by side.

To be fair in the past there would have been important stocking, distribution, and printing issues to do this. While many of them are still relevant today by and large the advent of the internet and related technologies have made this a new ballgame.

In the end the various editions Classic D&D are specific games that people like. Some of them could be better presented but they play just the same as they did back in the day. Just as Chess plays like it did two centuries ago (and further back). "Progress" in Chess involves people figuring out new strategies for the game's various phases. "Progress" for a classic edition of D&D is likewise can be measure in what the people in the hobby do it with.

Quote from: Rincewind1;656196I actually like what I've seen of CoC 7e, as they seem to steamline the system greatly - so far the only things remiss would be the attributes, which'd be entirely shifted into percentage value, from which change little'd be lost, given how I and most people rolled usually with Opposed Checks, rather than using Resistance/Opposed Checks table (which was only really useful for Poison Checks).

If they intend to replace CoC 6e or prior with 7e then it is a stupid move no matter how good of a game it is. They should market it as their own thing and relegate 6e or prior support to their specialty print stuff like they do with many of their BRP supplements.

Quote from: estar;656200Game companies that cater to chess players handle international chess versus variations. They don't tell international chess players that their game sucks and cease selling them. They sell both side by side.

Well, that's another problem, the underhanded marketing tactics used to promote new editions of RPGs.
 

QuoteI think how Stephen Cole of Armadillo is handling the varying version of Star Fleet Battles. Rather than say to SFB players that their game sucks and cease publishing or supporting it. They instead came out with Federation Commander which is way more novice friendly. And now they sell the two games side by side.

To be fair in the past there would have been important stocking, distribution, and printing issues to do this. While many of them are still relevant today by and large the advent of the internet and related technologies have made this a new ballgame.

In the end the various editions Classic D&D are specific games that people like. Some of them could be better presented but they play just the same as they did back in the day. Just as Chess plays like it did two centuries ago (and further back). "Progress" in Chess involves people figuring out new strategies for the game's various phases. "Progress" for a classic edition of D&D is likewise can be measure in what the people in the hobby do it with.

It's interesting indeed how you don't see the whole "game design as technology" argument in board games. Perhaps because there are some principles there that already apply, and really a plethora of genres that various schools of design apply to - as well as a degree of mathematical technology that varies.

QuoteIf they intend to replace CoC 6e or prior with 7e then it is a stupid move no matter how good of a game it is. They should market it as their own thing and relegate 6e or prior support to their specialty print stuff like they do with many of their BRP supplements.

Well, as I said - so far the changes seem to be quite small, essentially unifying the system into whole percentage based. Perhaps it could be called New Call of Cthulhu indeed, but I think and/or suspect it'll be wholly backwards compatible. They'd shoot themselves in the foot by changing the best thing about CoC.  Then again, stupider things happened.

Quote from: Rincewind1;656202It's interesting indeed how you don't see the whole "game design as technology" argument in board games. Perhaps because there are some principles there that already apply, and really a plethora of genres that various schools of design apply to - as well as a degree of mathematical technology that varies.

I view the evolution of game design like learning how to shoot and direct a movie. While movies couldn't be made without the latest technology of their time, whether a movie is great, good, or sucks is not determined by the tech but rather by the vision of the director and team making the film. There are some films that remain classic despite the myriad advances since. They still remain as watchable (or not) as they were back in the day.

The advance of film technology doesn't mean that later films are automatically better but it does mean that a film being produced today have several order more magnitude options than the films of the 1910s.

The same with games. Every decade, designers come up with new techniques. Technology allows more ways of presenting games. Like films there are a ton more options to pick from when creating a game or crafting a supplement to an existing game.

But the increase in of itself doesn't automatically make later games any better.

To illustrate with another example, I could could use 18th century techniques to craft a crappy chair, I could also use a CNC milling/lathe machine to craft the same chair in a tenth of the time and with far less waste of wood. But the end result is still a crappy chair.

Techniques and tech are just tools. It is the craftsman or the writer in the case of games that determine how good it is.

I'm gonna quote myself here, because it's relevant, a response to a thread about that Goblin Games guy blathering on about the evils of appealing to old-schoolers with 5e.

QuoteHere's the thing, and I've written about this in a few places and even considered putting a permanent "sticky" post on Bedroom Wall Press' blog about it.

I know the nostalgia argument is bullshit, because I don't have any nostalgia for the old editions. I didn't even like them. I was a Vampire/Werewolf player back in the day mostly, and some Rifts before that.  I honestly hated almost every one of the old editions I ever read in those days, save a grudging respect for the Red Box and its direct descendents.

I came to the OSR originally out of purely practical reasons: I'd already done 3e/4e-style, "new school" design with Drums of War, and frankly, it sucks. It is an awful, unfun, and irritating way to design and develop a game, and I don't freakin' get paid enough to design games I'm not having fun making.

Hulks and Horrors was an old-school engine largely because I wanted D&D, but I sure as hell didn't want to do 3e/4e design again. I hate working with full D20, it's a tedious mess. And the free-form nature of the best old-school feel, with a bit more streamlined design, quickly started producing the most fun design work I ever did, and thereafter, some of the best gaming I've ever had.

I came to the OSR scene as a bitter cynic and critic of it, converted out of necessity, and I've stayed because it's just more fun.  It's more of what I got into roleplaying games for than anything has been since the 90s. It makes games that are better both as actual games and as roleplaying exercises, and I intend to stick around making H&H Engine games until the end of time in all likelihood, because I'm too old to waste my time converting to the next hot new trend when this one is already working for me.