dd.stevenson
Super KY
I don't believe you can have one without inviting the other.
Game design has "moved on"
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
RPG Design as a form of Engineering works well for me.
We can build cars. Engineering has moved on from certain techniques and moved to others.
Engineering can't give us an answer whether we want to build a fast car or a fuel-efficient car or a motorbike or a bridge. But it has certainly moved on - while we could try to fuel a car with a steam engine, we won't do so, because we have developed something better now. (Though if for some reason we wanted to, Engineering might be able to build better steam engines then the first existing ones, even though those were quite possibly build by some extremely smart and gifted people.)
Game Design can't tell us whether whether we want a sci-fi game, a fantasy game, a game with strong narrative elements, a game focused on simulation of properties. But it could tell us how we might best do it and what approaches are unlikely not work.
We can build cars. Engineering has moved on from certain techniques and moved to others.
Engineering can't give us an answer whether we want to build a fast car or a fuel-efficient car or a motorbike or a bridge. But it has certainly moved on - while we could try to fuel a car with a steam engine, we won't do so, because we have developed something better now. (Though if for some reason we wanted to, Engineering might be able to build better steam engines then the first existing ones, even though those were quite possibly build by some extremely smart and gifted people.)
Game Design can't tell us whether whether we want a sci-fi game, a fantasy game, a game with strong narrative elements, a game focused on simulation of properties. But it could tell us how we might best do it and what approaches are unlikely not work.
Sure you can. But not on the internet, probably. Intranets make anger monkeys.
Neonchameleon
Legend
ENWorld is, and always has been a D&D 3.X centric site. It was originally, if I am not mistaken, a news aggregator for D&D 3.0 and developed from there. As such fans of old school games have often avoided the site set up for TETSNBN (as a certain old school site calls D&D 3.X). And there has in my experience always been an inherent bias towards D&D 3.X on ENWorld simply by the nature of the community.
On the other hand, although I have differences with the moderation standards here (I believe that consistent lying after this has been pointed out (anyone can be mistaken) is far more inimical to discussion than being directly discourteous, whereas the standard here is about how you say things far more than what you say) I've seen no evidence of a conscious bias to 3.X. Merely that D&D 3.X is what ENWorld was set up for and what it defaults to as the popular opinion. It is biassed towards 3.X in my experience, but unintentionally so - with objectivity being impossible.
On the other hand, although I have differences with the moderation standards here (I believe that consistent lying after this has been pointed out (anyone can be mistaken) is far more inimical to discussion than being directly discourteous, whereas the standard here is about how you say things far more than what you say) I've seen no evidence of a conscious bias to 3.X. Merely that D&D 3.X is what ENWorld was set up for and what it defaults to as the popular opinion. It is biassed towards 3.X in my experience, but unintentionally so - with objectivity being impossible.
Actually, it tends to be "the current D&D edition centric". 3.x hasn't been the most commonly discussed D&D edition here for over 5 years - a long time ago; it was 4E for a long time, now it's Next. I'm sure if 6E ever comes about, it'll be 6E-centric. Folks like to keep up with the new stuff; which is cool - it's a news site, after all. The 3.x fans - largely - switched to Pathfinder and are all on that official site.
Last edited:
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Most forums I can think of center ariund a particular edition, style if play or game. That is just human nature (my impression of En World is that the popular games here 3E-Pathfinder-4E). I post in a few forums and there is always a little culture shock when you jump from one to another, because you are accustomed to certain assumptions being the norm, and then you go to a place with different assumptions. Ideally you'd have more mixed forums, but I have noticed even on forums that strive for variety, people stake out different regions of the board.
I don't think it's bad that people disagree. Sometimes the negativity andhostility can be too much. I think we'd all be better off if we made thing less personal and emotional. But this is a hobby people are passionate about. People are going to speak strongly in favor of what they like and argue against the thing they don't.
For me what works best is seeing that as an opportunity to explore ideas and topics, while not allowing myself to let what someone on the internet thinks affect what works for me at my table. If I encounter stuff that works for me, I use it, but I don't adopt stuff that doesn't work for me, even if someone makes a good theoretical argument online for why it should work for me. I feel like people invest too much in their ability to debate. We are not all great debaters, its possible to win an argument and be wrong, or lose an argument and be right. So folks shouldn't take it so hard when we get into these discussions and another poster challenges their position effectively. If you talk about games online, you will lose arguments. You will lose them badly, be painted into corners and occassionally make a fool of yourself defending awkward positions you were pinned to by a better debater.
While that's true, I think it's also important to remember that it's actually only a loud minority which points at, accuses the motives of, or acts hostile to others. That vast swathe of people are happily sharing their house rules or playing in PbP games, or being excited about some new product.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
Gotta say that I really, really haven't seen this and I've been here almost since the first iteration of the forums started. I prefer 2E and I'm not shy about saying so, and I've never caught any flack for it. AFAICT this is about the friendliest place on the web to talk about RPGs.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I don't see a lot of hostility against editions of AD&D either. Never really have, other than the standard jabs at Gygax, over-powered wizards, over-powered multiclassing, and "bad" RPG design that have always been rife in the RPG community.
That said, I think the place is more hostile than it has been in the past and the 4e-fan/4e-critic divide is probably the main source of the tension. It spills onto a lot of topics, even ones that are originally edition neutral and about general RPG play.
Teataine
Explorer
I'm very much late to the party here, but RPGs being closer to art than science (a view that I'd subscribe to), doesn't preclude them from "moving on". Art has moved on. Art, graphic design, music, sculpture...these are all different now than from what they were like in the 70's, the 30's, the 19th century, 13th century or in ancient Rome.
Sure, some works of art are "timeless". Some games can be timeless, too. Some scientific discoveries are timeless as well.
The Illiad is timeless. Doesn't change the fact that literature has moved on and if you tried to (re)write the Illiad today, it wouldn't be a masterpiece. People wouldn't really care for it, not in the same sense. There's a very funny Borghes story about that.
The fact that Basic D&D is still good and popular and played today, doesn't mean that we don't need new games or that all games should try to ape it.
Otherwise games would have never moved on from chess. And while chess is pretty much timeless, wouldn't that also be super boring?
Sure, some works of art are "timeless". Some games can be timeless, too. Some scientific discoveries are timeless as well.
The Illiad is timeless. Doesn't change the fact that literature has moved on and if you tried to (re)write the Illiad today, it wouldn't be a masterpiece. People wouldn't really care for it, not in the same sense. There's a very funny Borghes story about that.
The fact that Basic D&D is still good and popular and played today, doesn't mean that we don't need new games or that all games should try to ape it.
Otherwise games would have never moved on from chess. And while chess is pretty much timeless, wouldn't that also be super boring?
