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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7532372" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I was around then and I read the Dragon articles, and if you go back and read those early debates it is very clear that no one has a clear idea of how to describe what they are talking about. One word that you would have heard a lot in 1980 is 'realism'. Fans and designers tended to debate games in terms of how 'realistic' they they were, with the implication that mature and sophisticated gamers would naturally gravitate toward the more realistic systems. A very good example of this mindset comes from the introduction of the GURPS rulebook where it says: "The basic rule system emphasizes realism. Therefore, it can fit <em>any</em> situation - fantasy or historical, past, present or future." This is exactly the opposite of the conclusion of the "system matters" people. Here are rules that can fit any game you would want to have, claims the author. How do you know this is true? Because they are <em>realistic</em>. This system is inappropriate for nothing! This is Steve Jackson saying this, one of the biggest names in the industry, a guy with real design chops. Tell me again what everyone knows?</p><p></p><p>(As an aside, while I think SJ was wrong about this assertion, in his defense the thinking in that sentence was ubiquitous at the time. Almost everyone thought like that and the major systems of the time reflect it. Also, I think he can design rings around Ron Edwards.)</p><p></p><p>Realism through the whole of the '80s was a blanket term that covered every goal of your game. If your game wasn't generating role play? The reason was the game was realistic enough? If your game wasn't balanced; well the problem was that it wasn't realistic enough. The main side argument this developed was over speed of play. How heavy was your rules? The goal was to create 'realistic' rules that still played quickly. </p><p></p><p>Now I'm not saying that there weren't very sophisticated arguments regarding rules and systems back then, but they had very different assumptions than this thread.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think the concept of "system matters" that is being used in this thread was expressed until like 1999, and wasn't I feel formalized until something like 2004. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Paranoia is a genre game in a genre that isn't particularly mainstream. Nonetheless, I find it a great example of how system does not matter. I tried to run Paranoia once. I'm a bit on the autistic side. I don't really do humor. I mean, I do, in as much as I often have NPCs that make people laugh, but I'm not what you'd call a witty person. So when I ran Paranoia it quickly descended into a dystopian horror story something like Logan's Run in tone, and not the jovial humorous game that the game intends - despite it being an early example of a game that tries to define the procedures of play for the DM. Unfortunately, it turns out humor is not something you can easily define. So my attempt at running Paranoia was a bit of a bust and I learned the limits of my ability. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hard as this may be to believe, at the time Boot Hill came out, it was not at all clear that the Western was not at least as mainstream of a genre as fantasy, science fiction, or superheroes. It was not intended as a niche game and while I'm not super familiar with the Boot Hill rules, having not played them since 1990 or something, and then only once, my general feeling is that you could run any number of games with different tones and settings using Boot Hill.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7532372, member: 4937"] I was around then and I read the Dragon articles, and if you go back and read those early debates it is very clear that no one has a clear idea of how to describe what they are talking about. One word that you would have heard a lot in 1980 is 'realism'. Fans and designers tended to debate games in terms of how 'realistic' they they were, with the implication that mature and sophisticated gamers would naturally gravitate toward the more realistic systems. A very good example of this mindset comes from the introduction of the GURPS rulebook where it says: "The basic rule system emphasizes realism. Therefore, it can fit [I]any[/I] situation - fantasy or historical, past, present or future." This is exactly the opposite of the conclusion of the "system matters" people. Here are rules that can fit any game you would want to have, claims the author. How do you know this is true? Because they are [I]realistic[/I]. This system is inappropriate for nothing! This is Steve Jackson saying this, one of the biggest names in the industry, a guy with real design chops. Tell me again what everyone knows? (As an aside, while I think SJ was wrong about this assertion, in his defense the thinking in that sentence was ubiquitous at the time. Almost everyone thought like that and the major systems of the time reflect it. Also, I think he can design rings around Ron Edwards.) Realism through the whole of the '80s was a blanket term that covered every goal of your game. If your game wasn't generating role play? The reason was the game was realistic enough? If your game wasn't balanced; well the problem was that it wasn't realistic enough. The main side argument this developed was over speed of play. How heavy was your rules? The goal was to create 'realistic' rules that still played quickly. Now I'm not saying that there weren't very sophisticated arguments regarding rules and systems back then, but they had very different assumptions than this thread. I don't think the concept of "system matters" that is being used in this thread was expressed until like 1999, and wasn't I feel formalized until something like 2004. Paranoia is a genre game in a genre that isn't particularly mainstream. Nonetheless, I find it a great example of how system does not matter. I tried to run Paranoia once. I'm a bit on the autistic side. I don't really do humor. I mean, I do, in as much as I often have NPCs that make people laugh, but I'm not what you'd call a witty person. So when I ran Paranoia it quickly descended into a dystopian horror story something like Logan's Run in tone, and not the jovial humorous game that the game intends - despite it being an early example of a game that tries to define the procedures of play for the DM. Unfortunately, it turns out humor is not something you can easily define. So my attempt at running Paranoia was a bit of a bust and I learned the limits of my ability. Hard as this may be to believe, at the time Boot Hill came out, it was not at all clear that the Western was not at least as mainstream of a genre as fantasy, science fiction, or superheroes. It was not intended as a niche game and while I'm not super familiar with the Boot Hill rules, having not played them since 1990 or something, and then only once, my general feeling is that you could run any number of games with different tones and settings using Boot Hill. [/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