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

[Gorgon Zee]

Better is not always subjective. More enjoyable is subject, and also you may not care about how something is better than another. For example, a Tank is objectively better at not being damaged by bullets than my Saturn. However, I couldn't care less about that, and prefer my car. However a version of my Saturn that had a bluetooth connection to the sound system would be an objective better that I would prefer.

So, to games. Yes, there are many ways that modern games are objectively better than older versions. You may not care about them, but many people do. I'm going to take a straw man and compare AD&D to FATE. Mostly because I have played a lot of both. The modern game:

* Has better presentation, formatting and indexing.
* Has a more consistent writing style
* Adapts better to different genres
* Has more consistency in mechanics
* Is faster to become competent at playing
* Allows new skills more easily
* Allows for more variety in character creation statistics
* Has a more diverse player pool
* Provides more advice to players
* Provides more advice to GMs
* Fits on bookshelves more easily
* Is cheaper
* Is available nicely in electronic form

A lot of those characterizations are fairly generally true of modern games also. So, in many ways the modern games are better. Objectively so. The only question, though, is "do you prefer them?" For many old games, they have charm, nostalgia, familiarity and -- importantly -- a feel of being just right for a certain way of playing. I absolutely loved playing AD&D, but now I much prefer FATE. For me, the general improvements in the way modern games do things overcome the "just right" feel of the older systems. But that's just me.

On the other hand, I prefer to watch old, bad (very bad...) episodes of the BBC series Blake's 7 rather than any of the new Star Trek shows, so it's not like I'm universal in preferring modern goodness ...

 

[billd91]

The modern game:

* Has better presentation, formatting and indexing.
* Has a more consistent writing style
* Adapts better to different genres
* Has more consistency in mechanics
* Is faster to become competent at playing
* Allows new skills more easily
* Allows for more variety in character creation statistics
* Has a more diverse player pool
* Provides more advice to players
* Provides more advice to GMs
* Fits on bookshelves more easily
* Is cheaper
* Is available nicely in electronic form

These are objective criteria?

Better presentation/consistency of writing style may affect how the game is communicated, but is it the game itself? That doesn't sound like a very good marker of a modern game to me.

Adapts better to different genres - better by whose standards? Niche games are, by definition, less "modern" than generic ones?

Faster and easier to learn - isn't that a measure of complexity not modernity? PanzerBlitz is easier to learn than Advanced Squad Leader but it is, by no stretch of the imagination, more modern.

More diverse player pool - D&D has a pretty diverse player pool, these boards should tell you that and I can tell you that off the boards it's even more diverse than it is here. But isn't that a measure of the market, not the game itself?

Offers more advice - I can't think of a game that has offered more advice, over the years, than D&D and that includes all editions. Must be a modern game!

Fits on bookshelves more easily - Really? Those original D&D booklets fit on the shelf great. Better than 4e's books. So it's more modern?

They were cheaper too.

And I can get PDFs of them.



For the most part, I don't see many of those factors as being relevant to determining how modern a game is or how modern games are objectively better than older ones. Any game can be written with more or less effective methods of communication and layout but, as always, there are trade-offs. The 4e books, I thought, we well-laid out and read with a lot of clarity, yet a lot of people complain about them being difficult to read. They're easy to refer to, but dull to read through and aren't very inspiring. In contrast, the 1e DMG may be harder to refer to, but it's a lot more fun to read through and generate inspiration to play. Which is better?

Basically, I think you've got a really idiosyncratic list of what you consider "modern" and better - but that's a subjective viewpoint.

 

[Luce]

To OP:
I think the phenomena is driven by a number of factors here are just a few:
pro-innovation bias Closest to the one you are asking. Basically if its is new it must be better.
However there may be other thinks effecting this such as "bandwagon effect" (what is currently popular, in a way a herd mentality), "confirmation bias" (looking for ways to support ones existing beliefs), post-purchase rationalization (once you bought it you think it is good) etc.

Here is an experiment, take the best (in your opinion and worst products from different editions). Then think why you made those choices.

To me each edition have some build in assumptions about play, some more loosely then other but still there. For example, there was anticipated shift in 1st & 2nd ed. around 9-10th level where the PC started to get involved in politics. 3E has its wealth by level and CR. Of coarse there is no Game Police, so nobody will come to take you to task if you choose to make modifications.

As for the evolution I would call it adaptation, but the term is still apt.
Earlier editions IMO focused on individual group customizing the rules to their liking, that resulted in tailored styles which were not very portable. Campaigns also seemed to be intended to last for longer periods. Later editions focused on portability and unification of experience as well as popularizing the game to a wider audience and I think achieved that goal.
There seems to be a trades off of coarse. There always is. Some like more fluff, others less for example. What is good for one play style may not be for another.

 

[MJS]

So to clarify, all the people who've worked on D&D over the last 30+ years have done so out of "greed and nothing else"??? None of them were people who genuinely liked the game and wanted to make it better?
ed.)

Ah, no of course not, all the subsequent designers' work speaks for itself - I mean that with no tongue in cheek - but, it's not their baby -
And yes, the grabbing for the D&D brand, and Gary losing it, was the work of greed, among other things, none of them particularly nice.
Creative integrity matters to me - some other band covering the Beatles ain't the Beatles, even if MJ held the rights. 2E is in a grey area, but 3, 4, and 5 are not the authors' work. They are only called D&D due to corporate ownership and derivativeness, which is a blessing when the edition is new, and a curse when it gets blowtorched by the suits.
I think RPG evolution is cool, I just hate corporatism. I also hate when the original rulesets are derided and disrespected - there's a new D&D for you!
It must be a strange pill for modern D&D designers to have to swallow every time they get paid, that is, if they have artistic integrity.

 

[Jester David]

As the late great Douglas Adams said: evolution does not progress, it wanders.

Games are tricky when it comes to change, because the entire identity of the game is often tied to the rules and presentation of the game. If you change the rules of Monopoly to make it more a Eurogame, say making it so half the players don’t go bankrupt and sit out half the game, then you risk making a game that’s Monopoly in name only.

This only partially applies to D&D. I wrote a lengthy blog article on the subject.
Summarizing that, D&D is equal parts lore and mechanics. If you change too much of either you begin to drift away from what seperates D&D from every other fantasy RPG on the market. And there are LOTS. Name recognition can only carry you so far.

Streamlining seems to be the most effective change. If the mechanic seems familiar in play but is easier to adjudicate then it’s an easy change to make. Moving from THAC0 and negative AC to BAB and positive AC had little effect on actually playing. You rolled the same and hit the same, but it was easier to manage.

There’s an infinite amount of changes you could make to D&D. You could make endless “evolutions” to the game.
For example, polyhedral dice are an added expense that make the game harder to start playing, and add a swinging to the combat where you have equal odds of critting or fumbling. Changing to 3d6 adds a nice bellcurve. Heck, let’s go easier and go down to 2d6 and keep the numbers down.
Attack bonuses and variable AC also slow down play with math. You could assume characters have the best armour for your class and have a static hit number dependant on class. Fighters might have a 9, clerics an 8, rogues a 7, and wizards a 6.
Or dump PC defences altogether and get the players to roll all the dice. Monsters have a hit number and you have to roll high enough to dodge or parry. It keeps players more active at all times as they’re constantly rolling.
Of course, as Dungeon Command showed, its much easier to be tactical if you know your attacks are not going to miss and the random element is elsewhere. Such as recharge rates, having to see what powers have recharged and which are still on cooldown. No one likes wasting a turn so you should always be effective making the game less about lucky rolls and more about strategy.

Those are just a handful of ideas, and I’m not a professional game designer. They’re all viable ideas that could be used to “evolve” D&D. And most could be used as the spine of fun RPGS. But that does not necessarily make them compatible with D&D and its legacy.

 

[Morrus]

As the late great Douglas Adams said: evolution does not progress, it wanders.

Games are tricky when it comes to change, because the entire identity of the game is often tied to the rules and presentation of the game. If you change the rules of Monopoly to make it more a Eurogame, say making it so half the players don’t go bankrupt and sit out half the game, then you risk making a game that’s Monopoly in name only.

This only partially applies to D&D. I wrote a lengthy blog article on the subject.
Summarizing that, D&D is equal parts lore and mechanics. If you change too much of either you begin to drift away from what seperates D&D from every other fantasy RPG on the market. And there are LOTS. Name recognition can only carry you so far.

Streamlining seems to be the most effective change. If the mechanic seems familiar in play but is easier to adjudicate then it’s an easy change to make. Moving from THAC0 and negative AC to BAB and positive AC had little effect on actually playing. You rolled the same and hit the same, but it was easier to manage.

There’s an infinite amount of changes you could make to D&D. You could make endless “evolutions” to the game.
For example, polyhedral dice are an added expense that make the game harder to start playing, and add a swinging to the combat where you have equal odds of critting or fumbling. Changing to 3d6 adds a nice bellcurve. Heck, let’s go easier and go down to 2d6 and keep the numbers down.
Attack bonuses and variable AC also slow down play with math. You could assume characters have the best armour for your class and have a static hit number dependant on class. Fighters might have a 9, clerics an 8, rogues a 7, and wizards a 6.
Or dump PC defences altogether and get the players to roll all the dice. Monsters have a hit number and you have to roll high enough to dodge or parry. It keeps players more active at all times as they’re constantly rolling.
Of course, as Dungeon Command showed, its much easier to be tactical if you know your attacks are not going to miss and the random element is elsewhere. Such as recharge rates, having to see what powers have recharged and which are still on cooldown. No one likes wasting a turn so you should always be effective making the game less about lucky rolls and more about strategy.

Those are just a handful of ideas, and I’m not a professional game designer. They’re all viable ideas that could be used to “evolve” D&D. And most could be used as the spine of fun RPGS. But that does not necessarily make them compatible with D&D and its legacy.

Black text on a black background!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Creative integrity matters to me - some other band covering the Beatles ain't the Beatles, even if MJ held the rights.

I've never really understood this attitude. I mean, of course Rufus Wainwright isn't a Beatle, but I like his rendition of Across the Universe ten times more than the original. Does that mean I don't respect and recognize the Beatles' greatness? No. They get props for writing a song that people are still listening to 40+ years later.

But I'm not going to criticize the creative integrity of musicians who do the Beatles the honor of covering their songs, or deny that some of them just sing 'em better. (To my ears.) I think it's possible, and even wise, to recognize an original and at the same time acknowledge that improvements are possible.

...What were we talking about?

 

[Morrus]

I've never really understood this attitude. I mean, of course Rufus Wainwright isn't a Beatle, but I like his rendition of Across the Universe ten times more than the original. Does that mean I don't respect and recognize the Beatles' greatness? No. They get props for writing a song that people are still listening to 40+ years later.

But I'm not going to criticize the creative integrity of musicians who do the Beatles the honor of covering their songs, or deny that some of them just sing 'em better. (To my ears.) I think it's possible, and even wise, to recognize an original and at the same time acknowledge that improvements are possible.

...What were we talking about?

What, you don't drive a black Model T Ford?

 

[MJS]

I've never really understood this attitude. I mean, of course Rufus Wainwright isn't a Beatle, but I like his rendition of Across the Universe ten times more than the original. Does that mean I don't respect and recognize the Beatles' greatness? No. They get props for writing a song that people are still listening to 40+ years later.

But I'm not going to criticize the creative integrity of musicians who do the Beatles the honor of covering their songs, or deny that some of them just sing 'em better. (To my ears.) I think it's possible, and even wise, to recognize an original and at the same time acknowledge that improvements are possible.

...What were we talking about?

the singing of another's song doesn't take away its creator's right to ownership of it. It's a sad thing when it happens in any of the publishing businesses.
It happened to D&D long ago, before some gamers were even born, but it's still important to recognize, especially when said authors were legally prohibited from even talking about it publicly.
Lawyers & Lechers
coming soon to your FLGS

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

the singing of another's song doesn't take away its creator's right to ownership of it. It's a sad thing when it happens in any of the publishing businesses.
It happened to D&D long ago, before some gamers were even born, but it's still important to recognize, especially when said authors were legally prohibited from even talking about it publicly.
Lawyers & Lechers
coming soon to your FLGS

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the facts of how D&D went from private property to company property. At the risk of derailing the thread, is there somewhere I can get them?