Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7532360" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I think that this statement is clearly not supportable from my experience. As early as the mid-late 1970's there many diverse opinions on different sorts of rules and already much thinking (albeit of a very early sort) had gone on. Certainly Ken St. Andre and the T&T folks engaged in a robust debate with the D&D folks. Anyone who played a game of Boot Hill certainly was well-educated on the HUGE impact of system on play experience vs D&D! Traveler offered another PoV, and RQ another. ALL of these people were well aware that their systems differentiation from D&D was a key aspect of why and how they 'felt different' in play. All of this was well appreciated by 1980.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, yes, I agree, a certain group of what are now deemed 'indy game' or 'story game' developers created some games of this sort (and a wide spectrum of games were, and are, being created in the middle). As I pointed out before, 'system matters' came long before the first story game! (though IMHO those games have their roots in 1980's games that were of a similar but less refined ilk). TBH I think there's no big divide overall. Everyone knows that system matters, and everyone knows that you can bend different systems in various ways. Still, nobody thinks it is wise run games with inappropriate systems.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>OK, so I'm not really having a problem with this in the sense that, yes, some games envision a very specific type of play. They are generally called 'niche' games. Paranoia was an early-ish example of this sort of game, which came out in 1984, but arguably Boot Hill was the earliest mainstream example, and it was probably the 2nd or 3rd RPG ever written. </p><p></p><p>Now, I admit, Boot Hill, and even Paranoia ARE a lot looser in their procedural formulation than DitV or Dungeon World. I would chalk that up more to a lack of understanding of how to do it, and generally lower editorial and writing skill levels in games of the 70's and early 80's vs a lack of basic understanding of the concept of constrained play.</p><p></p><p>Another aspect is that RPG authors were pitching games in a MUCH less saturated and competitive market back in the early days. They naturally tended to aim for a more general audience. Today its pretty hard to imagine tossing yet another general purpose fantasy RPG out there, it has 100 competitors and is unlikely to be differentiated much. In 1980 it was perfectly feasible for RQ to do that however. Its authors didn't NEED to make it niche, that would have simply limited its appeal! </p><p></p><p>Mostly I just don't believe there were ever serious game designers who thought system didn't matter. Maybe a few SAID stupid things like that, but they knew better...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7532360, member: 82106"] I think that this statement is clearly not supportable from my experience. As early as the mid-late 1970's there many diverse opinions on different sorts of rules and already much thinking (albeit of a very early sort) had gone on. Certainly Ken St. Andre and the T&T folks engaged in a robust debate with the D&D folks. Anyone who played a game of Boot Hill certainly was well-educated on the HUGE impact of system on play experience vs D&D! Traveler offered another PoV, and RQ another. ALL of these people were well aware that their systems differentiation from D&D was a key aspect of why and how they 'felt different' in play. All of this was well appreciated by 1980. Well, yes, I agree, a certain group of what are now deemed 'indy game' or 'story game' developers created some games of this sort (and a wide spectrum of games were, and are, being created in the middle). As I pointed out before, 'system matters' came long before the first story game! (though IMHO those games have their roots in 1980's games that were of a similar but less refined ilk). TBH I think there's no big divide overall. Everyone knows that system matters, and everyone knows that you can bend different systems in various ways. Still, nobody thinks it is wise run games with inappropriate systems. OK, so I'm not really having a problem with this in the sense that, yes, some games envision a very specific type of play. They are generally called 'niche' games. Paranoia was an early-ish example of this sort of game, which came out in 1984, but arguably Boot Hill was the earliest mainstream example, and it was probably the 2nd or 3rd RPG ever written. Now, I admit, Boot Hill, and even Paranoia ARE a lot looser in their procedural formulation than DitV or Dungeon World. I would chalk that up more to a lack of understanding of how to do it, and generally lower editorial and writing skill levels in games of the 70's and early 80's vs a lack of basic understanding of the concept of constrained play. Another aspect is that RPG authors were pitching games in a MUCH less saturated and competitive market back in the early days. They naturally tended to aim for a more general audience. Today its pretty hard to imagine tossing yet another general purpose fantasy RPG out there, it has 100 competitors and is unlikely to be differentiated much. In 1980 it was perfectly feasible for RQ to do that however. Its authors didn't NEED to make it niche, that would have simply limited its appeal! Mostly I just don't believe there were ever serious game designers who thought system didn't matter. Maybe a few SAID stupid things like that, but they knew better... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain
Top