Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5225980" data-attributes="member: 42582">Agreed.I agree that chronology is not a measure of superiority. At least in my opinion, Rolemaster is in many respects - though not all - a better game than HARP, although 20 years or so older. Runequest is just a good game full stop, though older than RM. And I prefer 1st to 2nd ed AD&D.On the other hand, I think that modern designers have access to a wider range of techniques to apply to their games. Interestingly, applying some of these techniques can help diagnose the failure of chronology to equate to progress - for example, the more sophisticated vocabulary for analysing the game/metagame relationship helps reveal some of the problems with HARP compared to RM.I'm quite happy that WotC kept the name "D&D" for their flagship game, because it helps make the game a financial success, and hence supported with new mechanical and flavour elements, in a way that a different name would probably not have.I think the "is it still D&D, though?" question is hard to answer because D&D is used by different people to refer to so many different things: mechanics, overall flavour of the game, lists of monsters or treasures or spells, etc.For many years I GMed Rolemaster and not D&D, and yet the vast majority of threads about D&D play on this website that are not concerned with the minutiae of character building or action resolution mechanics are applicable to my experience with Rolemaster. In that sense, 4e is not a different game, because neither is Rolemaster. Experiences with one edition can be meaningfully compared to experiences with the others.On the other hand, I regard it as obvious that playing 4e to its strengths will produce a game different from 3E played to its strengths. Whether it will be different from a game of AD&D 1st ed or T&T played to its strengths I think is a bit harder to answer, because the strengths of AD&D and T&T are (in my view) less intimately connected to the minutiae of their character build and action resolution mechanics. In that sense, at least, I think they could be meaningfully described as "rules light". 4e is not rules light in the same way - its mechanical minutiae seem to me to push in the direction of a particular sort of gaming experience.<a href="http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=167673&postcount=1" target="_blank">I think this is going beyond a claim that "I don't like 4e" and more into "4e - like comparable 'modern'/'indie' RPGs - is a damaging cultural influence".</a><a href="http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=167673&postcount=1" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=167673&postcount=1" target="_blank">I've got no general objection to diagnosing damaging cultural influences. Personally, I wouldn't be starting with RPGs, which have a pretty minimal influence on the culture, and which, given this minimal influence, I suspect tend to follow rather than lead broader trends. And there's always a risk of causing offence when you diagnose a damaging cultural influence, as such a diagnosis does tend to have implications for the moral calibre of those who participate in, promote and/or enjoy the culural artefact in question. Also, there's the risk of simply appearing to be a reactionary.</a><a href="http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=167673&postcount=1" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=167673&postcount=1" target="_blank">Whether "grognard" should be considered a synonym for "RPG reactionary" I'm not sure of. I always thought that "grognard" had at least an ironic hint to it, especially when embraced by those it labels, which is at odds with being genuinely reactionary.</a></blockquote>

Verification