Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6223145" data-attributes="member: 177">Several of them are, if not outright objective, are probably statistically so - &quot;consistency&quot; is probably reasonably objective.Well, what defines &quot;modern&quot;?&nbsp; Is a &quot;modern&quot; game a specific style of game (like &quot;modern art&quot;), or is a &quot;modern game&quot; simply one that is done recently (like &quot;modern technology&quot;)?&nbsp; We should be clear about which we mean.I expect most folks are speaking in the &quot;modern technology&quot; sense.&nbsp; As in, a computer today is better than a computer from the 1970s, and they bundle the various improvements in it being &quot;modern technology&quot;.&nbsp; Now, you, individually, may find specific aspects in which you feel modern computers aren't better.&nbsp; And you, specifically, may feel you need to list all the individual improvements instead of lumping them together under one banner.&nbsp; But, much as you may protest, the MacBook Air is still better than a Commodore 64, due to being modern designs and modern tech.&nbsp; Go ahead an try to argue otherwise <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />You might instead do well to protest that, the designation of &quot;modern&quot; does not really apply to 5e as compared to 4e, that 4e isn't old enough fr there to have been sizable gains in &quot;technology&quot; that guarantees a better game.&nbsp; You'll still be stuck with folks saying that, really, game writers/designers have learned a great deal since Gygax's time, and his designs are now &quot;old tech&quot;, but you can't have everything. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Depends on what you call &quot;complexity&quot; as well as &quot;modernity&quot;.&nbsp; In a mathematical sense, whether you use rising AC or descending AC does not increase the system's complexity, but in terms of human cognition and use in play, it makes a difference.&nbsp; You can present a simple system in a way that is easy to comprehend, and a way which is difficult to comprehend.And, there's a pretty good argument that 1e, and many other games from the same era, qualify as baroque in design and/or presentation, and recent stuff is less so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6223145, member: 177"] Several of them are, if not outright objective, are probably statistically so - "consistency" is probably reasonably objective. Well, what defines "modern"? Is a "modern" game a specific style of game (like "modern art"), or is a "modern game" simply one that is done recently (like "modern technology")? We should be clear about which we mean. I expect most folks are speaking in the "modern technology" sense. As in, a computer today is better than a computer from the 1970s, and they bundle the various improvements in it being "modern technology". Now, you, individually, may find specific aspects in which you feel modern computers aren't better. And you, specifically, may feel you need to list all the individual improvements instead of lumping them together under one banner. But, much as you may protest, the MacBook Air is still better than a Commodore 64, due to being modern designs and modern tech. Go ahead an try to argue otherwise :) You might instead do well to protest that, the designation of "modern" does not really apply to 5e as compared to 4e, that 4e isn't old enough fr there to have been sizable gains in "technology" that guarantees a better game. You'll still be stuck with folks saying that, really, game writers/designers have learned a great deal since Gygax's time, and his designs are now "old tech", but you can't have everything. :) Depends on what you call "complexity" as well as "modernity". In a mathematical sense, whether you use rising AC or descending AC does not increase the system's complexity, but in terms of human cognition and use in play, it makes a difference. You can present a simple system in a way that is easy to comprehend, and a way which is difficult to comprehend. And, there's a pretty good argument that 1e, and many other games from the same era, qualify as baroque in design and/or presentation, and recent stuff is less so. [/QUOTE]

Verification