Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6052208" data-attributes="member: 996">Games have both a subjective 'fun' aspect and an objective technical aspect.&nbsp; The mechanics of 4e are flatly superior to those of other eds of D&amp;D.&nbsp; That's no big accomplishment, D&amp;D was the first RPG, so it was very 'primitive,' and it was also very slow to change.&nbsp; Probably most games made after 1980 are technically less screwed up than anything done for D&amp;D before 2000 (I haven't done an exhaustive survey, the point is just that classic D&amp;D didn't change much for 26 years).It's not surprising that 4e ruffled some feathers and appalled a lot of longtime players.&nbsp; It was a radical change.&nbsp; No matter how superior something new may be along any objectively measurable dimension, unfamiliarity, alone, can make it undesirable.&nbsp; That's not a new phenomenon.&nbsp; And I'm not just talking about the similar reaction classic D&amp;Ders had to 3.0, either, but a whole 'human nature' phenomenon.&nbsp; If the hobby survives for generations, that sort of resistance will just be overcome.&nbsp; I don't see that happening, I suspect TT RPGs will be an obscure footnote in the history of on-line gaming even one generation from now.If the last post I responded to is any indication, you haven't really expressed what you &quot;need&quot; from it, since you contradicted yourself rather dramatically.&nbsp; But, there's still a good point there.&nbsp; A 'good' game, in the technical sense, a balanced game, for instance, will be playable under a broader range of styles than a badly flawed one.&nbsp; So even if &quot;fun&quot; is subjective and hard to predict, a better-designed game will have a good chance of being &quot;fun&quot; to more potential players, if only because it'll be un-playable to fewer of them...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6052208, member: 996"] Games have both a subjective 'fun' aspect and an objective technical aspect. The mechanics of 4e are flatly superior to those of other eds of D&D. That's no big accomplishment, D&D was the first RPG, so it was very 'primitive,' and it was also very slow to change. Probably most games made after 1980 are technically less screwed up than anything done for D&D before 2000 (I haven't done an exhaustive survey, the point is just that classic D&D didn't change much for 26 years). It's not surprising that 4e ruffled some feathers and appalled a lot of longtime players. It was a radical change. No matter how superior something new may be along any objectively measurable dimension, unfamiliarity, alone, can make it undesirable. That's not a new phenomenon. And I'm not just talking about the similar reaction classic D&Ders had to 3.0, either, but a whole 'human nature' phenomenon. If the hobby survives for generations, that sort of resistance will just be overcome. I don't see that happening, I suspect TT RPGs will be an obscure footnote in the history of on-line gaming even one generation from now. If the last post I responded to is any indication, you haven't really expressed what you "need" from it, since you contradicted yourself rather dramatically. But, there's still a good point there. A 'good' game, in the technical sense, a balanced game, for instance, will be playable under a broader range of styles than a badly flawed one. So even if "fun" is subjective and hard to predict, a better-designed game will have a good chance of being "fun" to more potential players, if only because it'll be un-playable to fewer of them... [/QUOTE]

Verification