Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mishihari Lord" data-source="post: 6228612" data-attributes="member: 128">RPGs are changing in two ways as time moves on.&nbsp; First there are changes in what the game is trying to do.&nbsp; As an example, there was an emergence of games that try to promote stories in play.&nbsp; Second there are changes in how the games try to accomplish those things.&nbsp; The change from to-hit table to THAC0 is an example of this type of change.With regard to the first, it's art.&nbsp; There's no good argument to be made that one design goal is objectively better than another.&nbsp; With GNS as an example, there's no way to say sim, narrativist, or gamist play is objectively superior to the others.&nbsp; Their fashionability and popularity change with respect to each other over time, but again, that's like art.With regard to the second, you could argue that design gets better over time, as long as you can agree on the criteria for &quot;better.&quot;&nbsp; With THAC0 ve 3E's system, for example, both are dead simple to use once you know them, but 3E is easier to learn for newbies so it is considered better by many people.&nbsp; I don't care about how easy it is to learn so I see the change as more of a sideways move, neither an improvement nor a deterioration of design.A significant difficulty in discussing whether one edition is better than another is that both changes in what the game is trying to do and in how it does it happen at the same time.&nbsp; Player A might like AD&amp;D better than 4E because it promotes exploration, and Player B might prefer the reverse because it has more elegant math.&nbsp; Unless they're specific about whether their preferences are about what the games do or how they do it, they're going to have a hard time discussing anything.In practical application &quot;games have moved on&quot; is usually just an attempt by a poster to dismiss and discredit an approach he doesn't care for without offering any substantive criticism.&nbsp; As such I generally just ignore such posts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mishihari Lord, post: 6228612, member: 128"] RPGs are changing in two ways as time moves on. First there are changes in what the game is trying to do. As an example, there was an emergence of games that try to promote stories in play. Second there are changes in how the games try to accomplish those things. The change from to-hit table to THAC0 is an example of this type of change. With regard to the first, it's art. There's no good argument to be made that one design goal is objectively better than another. With GNS as an example, there's no way to say sim, narrativist, or gamist play is objectively superior to the others. Their fashionability and popularity change with respect to each other over time, but again, that's like art. With regard to the second, you could argue that design gets better over time, as long as you can agree on the criteria for "better." With THAC0 ve 3E's system, for example, both are dead simple to use once you know them, but 3E is easier to learn for newbies so it is considered better by many people. I don't care about how easy it is to learn so I see the change as more of a sideways move, neither an improvement nor a deterioration of design. A significant difficulty in discussing whether one edition is better than another is that both changes in what the game is trying to do and in how it does it happen at the same time. Player A might like AD&D better than 4E because it promotes exploration, and Player B might prefer the reverse because it has more elegant math. Unless they're specific about whether their preferences are about what the games do or how they do it, they're going to have a hard time discussing anything. In practical application "games have moved on" is usually just an attempt by a poster to dismiss and discredit an approach he doesn't care for without offering any substantive criticism. As such I generally just ignore such posts. [/QUOTE]

Verification