Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Evolution of Rules, is it really a good thing or not?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 6221499" data-attributes="member: 4348"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>In other words, that evolution and innovation obviously make rules better now than they were previously.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>How many truly think a game, like D&D or Pathfinder are worse if they haven't been "updated" recently?</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>What do you think of this, is this truly the overwhelming opinion of most of the folks that post on this site?</p><p></p><p>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!!!).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>It seems that it is also in the RPG market.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps a psychologist here can explain this phenomena and why the crowd automatically ascribes old=bad and new=good.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Or...vice versa...how do you feel they've evolved in the WRONG way...and actually gotten worse?</p><p></p><p>OR do you travel a middle path in your opinion...and how is that?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 6221499, member: 4348"] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Evolution of Rules, is it really a good thing or not?
Top