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

[GreyLord]

I see this with boardgames, and I see this with RPG's. For some reason people seem to view that getting "modernized" or getting a ruleset "up to current methods" in regards to boardgames, and rpgs (which is what this post is mostly about) always means the rules are getting better.

In other words, that evolution and innovation obviously make rules better now than they were previously.

For example, a fan of 3e will say...3e/3.5 was the rules finally catching up to what modern RPGs were doing, that AD&D rules were outdated, and hence the evolution up to 3e was a MUCH NEEDED catchup of the D&D rules.

However, in someways, when the same is stated of 4e, they'll toss their entire argument out the window and say 4e was a bad mistake.

A Fan of 4e will say...4e was truly innovating and presenting something for the modern gamer, and that the 3e rules were outdated and hence the innovation involved with creating 4e pushed RPGs forward towards balance and solid tactical and role (as opposed to roll) playing where min/max'ers didn't take the stage.

I've seen these types of posts in other threads quite a bit recently, especially when considering 5e...and whether it's innovation, or the evolution of rules...is happening, and if not...if that's a bad thing.

It's struck me enough that people are stuck on this idea that a ruleset made over 10 years ago is old and outdated (or make that 20, or 30 years ago) and in order to be good need to be updated with current ruleset though...that I'm puzzled.

How many truly think a game, like D&D or Pathfinder are worse if they haven't been "updated" recently?

I see this same idea with boardgames and it puzzles me (especially when you have boardgames that have truly stood the test of time such as Go, Chess, Shogi, Backgammon, or even Draughts).

I am one who seriously thinks BECMI and or B/X was one of the more perfect game rulesets made...and that one is over or almost over 30 years of age.

As much a fan of PF that I am, I'd actually rank BECMI and/or B/X as a better ruleset and better written overall in their incarnations up to the Rules Cyclopedia.

However, I get the impression I am distinctly in the minority here. It seems that most (at least from what I gather in their references to AD&D being outdated, an old ruleset and not keeping up with the times, that it was behind when in the 90s and other rulesets had evolved to be much better then it, or that 3e had run behind what other game systems were doing, was adhering to old and outdated ideas and such which 4e made better) of those here actually think that because something is innovative...it therefore is better?

That innovation absolutely means something is going to be better...or that because something is newer and shinier than what came in the past...it is automatically better?

What do you think of this, is this truly the overwhelming opinion of most of the folks that post on this site?

I actually can see this...as it also happens in boardgames. Some companies get to reprint a boardgame, but instead of simply reprinting it with the old rules...they have to "add" to the game in order to include the modern ideas that have made boardgames better...that the evolution of rules and creating boardgames are so awesome and innovative today, that without updating these old boardgames the boardgames would be hated (whilst ignoring that half the reason they are reprinting them is the love of those old rules that the gamers have in the first place!!!).

I see a whole bunch of people jump on board and agree with this in the boardgame market most of the time as well (on BGG...chess is actually NOT rated I the top 10 games...despite it's overwhelming popularity and length of time it's been around in the rest of the world at large).

It seems that it is also in the RPG market.

I'm one of those that absolutely HATE what FFG did with FWHRPG, and I tried to give it a fair shot. I'm glad they kept 40KRPG as it is...but they even tried to overhaul that drastically recently with a new print of Dark Heresy...until I suppose they got enough fan outrage (probably from people like me that LIKE the old system) that they changed their minds on just how massive an overhaul they were planning.

But for others, because it's not evolving to catch up with the modern games...it's an old and outdated system and almost criminal that it's still around.

Perhaps a psychologist here can explain this phenomena and why the crowd automatically ascribes old=bad and new=good.

And how do many here feel in regards to this...WHY do you feel the modern games have actually evolved for the better and in what ways do you think this is so?

Or...vice versa...how do you feel they've evolved in the WRONG way...and actually gotten worse?

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

 

[pemerton]

I see this with boardgames, and I see this with RPG's.

<snip>

that evolution and innovation obviously make rules better now than they were previously.

<snip>

It's struck me enough that people are stuck on this idea that a ruleset made over 10 years ago is old and outdated (or make that 20, or 30 years ago) and in order to be good need to be updated with current ruleset though...that I'm puzzled.

How many truly think a game, like D&D or Pathfinder are worse if they haven't been "updated" recently?

I don't think there's anything special about "updates". Runequest and Traveller are both over 30 years old, but as games basically achieve what they were trying to.

There was a certain approach to RPGing that comes from around the mid-80s, and was influential in the 90s, which aims at RPGing as story-creation. For those sorts of games, the rulesets being used (which were typically variants on either D&D-style, RQ-style or HERO-style mechanics) weren't really up to the job. Mechanical and system innovations have made it more viable to play RPGs that way.

So the way I see it innovation isn't an end in itself, but can be useful if you're trying to take a game in new directions.

 

[howandwhy99]

Games and the rules that comprise them can become relatively better based upon the design goals for the game. While Evolution is not synonymous with improvement, it can appear so if any current changes are towards preferred ends. If the changes aren't to your preference, then the current evolution might be cast as decline or devolution.

And yes, lots of people who care for a game, opinion, theory, or anything else phrase their ideas as "long needed improvements for...", "overcoming the backwards thinking of...", and so on. This doesn't mean these opinions are or are not actual improvements, but it is important to recognize if what is actually occurring is the shifting of a game's goals, much less its whole concept. This shifting of understanding is often what is happening as different philosophies rise and fall in and out of fashion, and not just in the gaming community.

Look at the storygaming community. They don't readily admit to a unique identity for games or game play at all. Instead their designs refer to every act and element as exclusively improvised narrative. It feeds a particular belief system where certain absolutes must be adhered to as understood within its shared philosophy. While very well researched, the shared language is steeped in ideas which don't just enable specific designs, but actually block other ideas which lead to alternate conclusions. And while there are very enjoyable and popular games stemming from the community's design philosophy, they are actually no better designed than other games. They are only better within the specifics of that philosophy's goals and concepts for games. Yet for some adherents living within this realm of thought the rest of the hobby needs to quit everything but.

On the other hand, the philosophy that led to those games has been very successful and influential across the gaming market. By changing both the goals and concept of games and gaming we are getting new games which play very differently than anything before. Of course, we are also forgetting why other games were ever enjoyable in the first place. If no one would ever design Chess given such a game design philosophy, designers won't try and improve on it and its popularity will decline.

The real problem comes from insular thinking. It leads from the belief that what is good for me must be good for you and what is bad for me must be bad for you. It is allowing one philosophy, one culture, or one community as the determiner of good for everything.

If you share goals with a game, then the ingenuity of its design can probably be better appreciated by you. As our fashions and preferences change older ideas and practices come back into vogue, like old games, and can be appreciated again. But this is a slow process and by no means should we think folks who don't like the current or up and coming fashions must accept them. A truly diverse world means opening ourselves to many understandings and playing not many games, but many games based on many different designs and philosophies. Think of it like the 90s when D&D needed to stop being a combat game and defining everything as either combat or non-combat, as if nothing else had any meaning beyond combat. Many people are currently in the same position with narrative games when it comes to non-narrative gaming.

 

[steeldragons]

How many truly think a game, like D&D or Pathfinder are worse if they haven't been "updated" recently?

Unfortunately, more than you'd think.

That innovation absolutely means something is going to be better...or that because something is newer and shinier than what came in the past...it is automatically better?

It is the "new & shiny" and...let's just say "people" are easy to blind and fool with the buzzword o' the day, like "innovaaaaatiooonnn." Innovation means diddly squat...except for "new & shiny." In no way is there any objective "better" inherent to it...But [again] "people" currently think it does.

What do you think of this, is this truly the overwhelming opinion of most of the folks that post on this site?

"Overwhelming opinion"? I certainly don't think so..and hope, even more, not. But the "people" that do certainly do exist and post around here. I imagine you'll find them on pretty much all/any rpg site nowadays.

Perhaps a psychologist here can explain this phenomena and why the crowd automatically ascribes old=bad and new=good.

Think a sociologist or anthropologist could give you just as good or valid an answer. Welcome to western [particularly U.S./American] culture!

And how do many here feel in regards to this...WHY do you feel the modern games have actually evolved for the better and in what ways do you think this is so?

They ["modern games"] blatantly have not "evolved for the better" in any measurable objective way. People will throw around jargon/specialized subcultural terms and acronyms and "game design theory" like it's something real. None of it is "better" or "evolved." Just different "rules" that different people came up with for different ways, they happen to like better, of playing make-believe. And then some ass who should be hunted down and strung up by his toenails, about a decade ago, came up with this idea of "innovaaaationnnnn" and if you weren't "innovaaaatinnnnnng" then you didn't amount to a hill o' beans.

It's all cultural BS.

 

[steeldragons]

double post.

 

[Morrus]

There will always be an element of fashion in there. Are today's preferred clothing styles better than those 10 years ago? Are today's novels better than those 10 years ago? Things in games which can - objectively - improve are production values (including art, editing, packaging, etc.) The actual words inside can evolve along with a trend, but, like clothing, that trend could be towards styles popular two decades ago.

I guess it partly breaks down to an art vs. science debate. Art doesn't improve; it just changes. Science does improve - it uses better tech and includes new discoveries*.

I think it can be safely argued that rules sometimes receive a more thorough mathematical workout during the design process than many some games used to; that's by no means a universal rule, though. But I guess it qualifies as an improvement rather than just a change.

*That's not a great analogy. The scientific process doesn't change much. But science certainly builds on previous work and uses better tools as times passes.

 

[Raith5]

I like innovation in RPGs which gives new ideas and experiences and I think there have been lessons learned through various iterations of D&D.

While all our copies of BECMI or first ed are always going to be there for us, I dont personally feel any particular pull to replay these games. The principle reason is that while I enjoyed them when I played them 30 years ago, I think Basic and even First ed to a degree had a fairly narrow playstyle. The dungeon crawling kind of style is something I do not currently enjoy. While 4th ed also has a problems around having the impression (in some circles at least) of a narrow playstyle, I think it has a far far broader canvas with rituals, skill challenges etc.

I think innovation is essential to capture the broader fanbase that makes up D&D now. I think modularity in DDN is the key here to make innovation and 'traditional' gaming be able to work in same broad system.

 

[fjw70]

I like innovation in RPGs which gives new ideas and experiences and I think there have been lessons learned through various iterations of D&D.

While all our copies of BECMI or first ed are always going to be there for us, I dont personally feel any particular pull to replay these games. The principle reason is that while I enjoyed them when I played them 30 years ago, I think Basic and even First ed to a degree had a fairly narrow playstyle. The dungeon crawling kind of style is something I do not currently enjoy. While 4th ed also has a problems around having the impression (in some circles at least) of a narrow playstyle, I think it has a far far broader canvas with rituals, skill challenges etc.

I think innovation is essential to capture the broader fanbase that makes up D&D now. I think modularity in DDN is the key here to make innovation and 'traditional' gaming be able to work in same broad system.

I agree with this and will add that I like innovation since it gives me dome thing new (whether I end up liking it or not). I have my AD&D and BX books and always will. If WotC had never moved away from those games then that is all I would have from a D&D perspective. But since they did I now gave 4e, 3/3.5/PF, 13th Age, etc.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In other words, that evolution and innovation obviously make rules better now than they were previously.

It's really a misconception about the notion of evolution. The concept of evolution is that traits that lead to reproductive success will slowly accumulate over generations, while traits that disfavor it will slowly become less prevalent. Those traits are only better or worse on one particular rubric.

The same is true in business. Traits of products that lead to customer sales and repeat business are favored, but that is only "better" in terms of sales. Practically speaking, this results in a sort of "lowest common denominator" effect; wherein products are designed to appeal to the largest number of people, rather than being the best for any one individual.

However, in someways, when the same is stated of 4e, they'll toss their entire argument out the window and say 4e was a bad mistake.

4e seems like an odd exception to me because of the OGL. Rather than continuing to slowly grow and change, the game was forced into a radical shift to try and get away from the OGL because someone decided it wasn't working well enough. Because they were trying to get away from the OGL, backwards compatibility was actively avoided. The lessons learned from almost a decade of 3e play were not only ignored but actively neglected. I think the actual game mechanics that emerged were fairly incidental and that they're a result of trying to reboot (rather than evolve) the business model.

I've seen these types of posts in other threads quite a bit recently, especially when considering 5e...and whether it's innovation, or the evolution of rules...is happening, and if not...if that's a bad thing.

For me to spend money on it, it would have to offer something distinct and new. Whether the market as a whole would be better off not innovating I don't know.

How many truly think a game, like D&D or Pathfinder are worse if they haven't been "updated" recently?

Yes. D&D isn't a zero sum game; it's open-ended. Each character you create is an idea that you've spent, and it leads you to want to create a new one. Eventually, you'll run out of distinctive options and want something new.

Perhaps more importantly, whatever flaws are present in the game will become more apparent the more you play it

That innovation absolutely means something is going to be better...or that because something is newer and shinier than what came in the past...it is automatically better?

Not automatically, but sometimes. I doubt that every individual revision was better in every way, but I think there have been some improvements.

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

I think the game evolved modestly over the length of AD&D (through all kinds of experimentation, some good, some bad). I think it evolved tremendously when WotC took over. I think it hasn't much since. I attribute the inconsistency behind the scenes to inconsistent personnel behind the scenes. The combination of designers that worked on 3e had a really magical alchemy going. They had great goals that were distinct from what had been done before but reverent to the game: make the game simulate better, make it simpler and more consistent, and make a system generic enough to be used for non-D&D settings. If all of them still worked there, then the system could have continued to grow in this direction.

 

[billd91]

There is nothing special about innovation or "modern" design over other non-modern(?) designs. That said, once a game is published, it starts to change. It's always a moving target. The developers may add on additional rules through subsequent publications or FAQ/rule interpretations. Players will find ways to use the rules that the designers didn't think of and will have trouble with rules the designers didn't anticipate. Periodically, a clean-up of all of these issues can be a very useful thing for a game - incorporating rewrites of rules that were confusing, restructuring other parts to adjust play and/or simulation. A new edition gives the designers a chance to nail the game in one place for a brief moment in time, get the rules in harmony, before it starts shifting and morphing again.

Face it, no game is perfect. No game can't stand some improvement. 3e turned AC around making it and the interplay of how bonuses worked with it much simpler. I'd consider that an improvement any edition of D&D prior to 3e could use - incorporating it would be, in my opinion, a positive evolution for any of them. 2e cleaned up 1e's messy surprise rules, gave us THAC0 as a formal part of the system thus dispensing with the hit matrices that included repetitive 20s in them (that barely anyone favored), both solid improvements to AD&D 1e. Yet it left the saving throws alone despite the loss of the combat matrices they were structured like and the really deficient saves in the thief's table. If anything in 2e cried out for further evolution, that table was it. So there was still room for improvement and further evolution.