Evolution of Rules, is it really a good thing or not?

[TerraDave]

I actually like the term evolution. And Chess.

Chess did change, a lot. Over centuries. People would change it this way, that way...it was purposeful from their point of view, but from broader point of the game, some things stuck and some things didn't. At some point, like, say, the shark, it reached a point where it didn't really need to change much, and stopped.

What is relevant here is that RPGs are still early in their evolution. Unlike, say, monopoly or scrabble, they have an inherent complexity that will take time to evolve.

Evolution is also a good analogy as it is messy. The "new game like a new model of car" approach might work, or it might not...that is part of the evolution. Related to this is its unevenness. An old species might survive next to a new one for a long time. Until it doesn't.

Ultimately the market test has to be passed. I am not sure this leads to "lowest common denominator", just something that survives in its niche in terms of play, and, if it is to be sold, survives as a viable product.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Evolution is also a good analogy in that there are such a thing as evolutionary dead ends. Many changes appear briefly and then disappear because they didn't really work out.

What is relevant here is that RPGs are still early in their evolution. Unlike, say, monopoly or scrabble, they have an inherent complexity that will take time to evolve.

True

Ultimately the market test has to be passed. I am not sure this leads to "lowest common denominator", just something that survives in its niche in terms of play, and, if it is to be sold, survives as a viable product.

I firmly believe that D&D is like the rest of the entertainment industry, where there's always going to be a split between what is sold to the largest number of people and what is the "best". On rare occasions, you get a blockbuster that's actually a good movie, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

The good news is that there are solutions where products can be targeted to a smaller niche of people and not fall into the lowest common denominator trap.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I regard the process of change as a net positive -- trying to better meet a player's/customer's needs is always a plus. Success of actual changes vary by the customer, though.

Are the 3.5 rules better than B/X by virtue of being more modern? Yes and no. Some things are simpler and cleaner (e.g. consistent "higher is better" in everything from attacks to saves to AC), but in other ways simplicity of both rules and presentation was lost. Depending on what you value either could be the better fit.

At the end of the day I want to see process continue, even at the risk of being periodically disappointed. I always have older versions to fall back on if I don't consider a newer version an improvement.

 

[MoonSong]

All in my opinion: to say that game rules are evolving is a misuse of the term "evolution".

If your new game rules are designed with a specific goal in mind, that's change, but not evolution. Evolution is not directed. It is not driven. It is a random walk through possibilities, over many generations. In evolution, the old and the new compete, and we see which one survives in the long run, and that process doesn't work cleanly in the RPG market.

This may sound like semantics, but the word "evolution" includes with it certain connotations and expectations that do not yet solidly apply to the development of RPGs, and we should weed those expectations out. The change in RPGs is has less to do with natural processes, and more to do with, say, the tendency for the automobile industry to have new cars every year.

As Morrus said, I feel It is a combination of changing fashion and design aesthetics, and changing knowledge of game-engineering.

You seem to be confussing Evolution with "evolution through natural selection" (though many use it to mean that, but here isn't a missuse at all). Evolution by itself at it's purest only means "change through time", and the word predates the concept of evolution of species by a long shot.

 

[MJS]

OR do you travel a middle path in your opinion...and how is that?

Indeed I do.
I am a creative artist. For me, it is a matter of authenticity, as well as the application of a ruleset. Dungeons & Dragons was designed and written by Arneson & Gygax. They are the authors of the game, and everything that follows is a different game by different authors, called D&D by the power of greed and nothing else. I think Gary may have sewn the seed himself by being so disingenuous towards Dave concerning 1E. It was a move on Gary's part that, had he not done, might have meant the two holding D&D to this day.

As for rules evolution, especially RPGs - all RPGs are variants of OD&D, which itself endorses the endless tinkering that continues to this day! There was NO putting that genie back in the bottle, and an industry owes its existence to it. This is awesome.

As a core, my experience is that OAD&D is the best one for ADVENTURING in sword&sorcery. It's true that its race/class/level restrictions were simply not in practice, but 3E's redesign was not necessary to achieve that. 3E also lays a bunch of crap down in its core that is far, far better suited to supplements. 4E is it's own minis game, and 5E is looking to be a new RPG called D&D as well.

I hope the new games never end. Like new music. But is anyone better than the Beatles, or Michael Jackson? Hell no. But Oasis wasn't called The Beatles because some owned the name somehow.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Considering that if we didn't have innovation, we wouldn't have D&D - as it's a innovation to a miniature wargame...

Yup, innovation is what separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom. It's how we have our hobby, and the free time to play it. Innovation can result in mistakes, but overall it's a very good thing.

Unless you're of the opinion that caveman-style subsistence living is superior to luxuries like wheels, alphabets, and underpants.

At the end of the day I want to see process continue, even at the risk of being periodically disappointed. I always have older versions to fall back on if I don't consider a newer version an improvement.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Libramarian]

I think evolution is the right concept, provided it's understood that much of the evolution in D&D has been the result of top-down designer bias rather than necessarily what would make the majority of players happy most of the time. Artificial selection vs. natural selection.

Basically modern D&D is an evolved form of OD&D, in the sense that a cockapoo is an evolved form of the wolf.

For example James Wyatt believes that a D&D campaign is meaningless without a heroic narrative and mythic resonance when many, many players are happy to bomb around adventureland killing and looting and double-crossing like they're playing the fantasy equivalent of GTAV.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think BECMI is the most elegant of the D&D rules. Flip the ACs over to ascending ACs and do the same to saves and you have a very simple and elegant system. Innovation for the sake of innovation is a bit pointless.

 

[MerricB]

I think BECMI is the most elegant of the D&D rules. Flip the ACs over to ascending ACs and do the same to saves and you have a very simple and elegant system. Innovation for the sake of innovation is a bit pointless.

It is, but I think it rarely happens that something is included "just because". About every part of D&D exists for a reason. The reason can completely misread the market, but I very much doubt that there are many - if any - elements of D&D rules that exist because "we need something new". Although I have a hard time otherwise explaining the flumph...

Cheers!

 

[Sunseeker]

I think it really depends.

On the whole, I think it's bad form to never revise or update a game, especially if there are obvious broken or malfunctioning qualities to it. How often it needs to be done is a different matter. Monopoly has remained constant because it's rules are very, very basic, there are variants, but the general concept is the same, even "Go For Broke" is just reverse Monopoly.

It's good to account for what "modern"(modern is a bad word, lets say "current") players expect from a game and enjoy about a game. Granted gamers are a diverse bunch, but you should at least be able to address the wants and needs of your target demographic.

I think on the whole, there is a reasonable expectation to keep your game fresh and functioning. This means creating new content and ensuring that the majority of bugs are squashed and the game plays smoothly. Sometimes this means updating the game, sometimes this only requires minor revisions. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all rule here.