Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bryan Vining" data-source="post: 399905" data-attributes="member: 7628">Umm... pardon me, but.. I don't recall saying that I had a problem with streamlined mechanics or greater and more balanced strategies.   Agreed, but that wasn't what I was saying.  I clearly failed to communicate my point to you.  It is as follows:  No game system is superior or inferior in and of itself.  Such a value judgement has to be made my one or more persons.  My feeling is that the most meaningful context in which those judgements are made is within the context of a single gaming group, which is, I think you'll agree, a very small subset of gamers.  Now, is that to say that opinions offered in a more general context (such as this message board) are not meaningful?  Of course not.  Game designers read these boards, and they are interested in the opinions of gamers (who are their market, after all).  However, at the end of the day, I and any other gamer will buy products for the game system that suits their gaming group(s) (or themselves) best.  Theory of game design would be meaningless if it were out of tune with what a lot of gamers like.  3E is streamlined, elegant, and well codified (its highest merit in my opinion, but a bit of a double-edged sword).  All of that wouldn't mean squat, though, if it didn't sell.  I think we all get that.  The thing is, though, that those characterstics and its popularity do not make it inherently "better".  It just is.  I will reiterate the point that popularity does not equal quality (though the two might be found together).  To illustrate that point, I'll take an example from the music world that most of us can relate to.  The Beatles and the Dave Clark Five were tremendously popular in 1964 and 1965.  While their music was certainly very good, had it not evolved, the Beatles would today be a better-remembered Dave Clark Five (who, incidentally, were occasionally better sellers of albums than the Beatles in these years).  What ultimately made the Beatles one of the unquestionably most influential bands in history was not their popularity in and of itself.  It was their experimentation with all sorts of recording tricks and the freedom to do what they wanted with their music without worry that it wouldn't sell.  Their popularity carried these new sounds and ideas very far, and it was an essential component in the spread of their influence, but their contribution to music only came about from their popularity tangentially (though their popularity was one of the reasons they quite touring).  The Dave Clark Five, OTOH, are little remembered by folks who didn't live in the 60s, even though their popularity was almost as substantial as the Beatles for a few years.  So, back to D&D.  3E is not higher quality because it is popular.  Nor does its popularity necessarily mean that it is higher quality.  There is almost certainly a correlation between the popularity of 3E and its quality, but a correlation is not proof of cause.  Without a careful survey of who's buying 3E and why, all we have is a correlation, not proof.  I play 3E.  I play HackMaster.  I play 1E.  Each has its merits and demerits.  Each has its own distinct flavor.  Nothing quite conjures fantasy for me like 1E, but it's rules are less consistent and poorly codified compared to 3E.  I love the freedom of 3E, but its flavor is, to me, less wistful and more about ass-kicking.  Neither features the richness of information and game mechanical benefits and penalties for role-playing that HackMaster does.  For me, its all a matter of taste and mood.  So, no, I do not think that 3E is better or superior to 1E.  It is different.  It is clearer and more consistent.  It is better codified.  But sometimes, I don't care about those things.  Sometimes I want the flavor of 1E.  It's just that simple, really.  Anyway, this post is already rather too long, and I've other things I need to be doing.  Cheers,Bryan</blockquote>

Verification