How computers have effected D&D

[Andor]

I had a thought last night and I thought I'd run it past you guys for general discussion.

When D&D was first dreamed up by G. Gygax (honored be his name) computers were not something that touched the daily lives of most people, even D&D players. Programming was done on cards and the PC was still beyond the dreams of SF writers.

D&D and AD&D, produced in this era, had loose rules systems. Much was left out, but from discussion of goals and examples of play we knew the intent of the rules. We had read Tolkien and Howard and we knew what was supposed to be happening in the game as those dice rolled.

During second edition computers became commonplace and the link between gamers and computers became well established as both appealed to the same sorts of people. As second edition progressed the rules became more and more explicit replacing the blank check of imagination with codified instructions, starting with kits and culminating with the powers and options books.

By third edition computers were everywhere and the internet was here. Many of us gathered at ENworld to soak up every bit of 3e news.

3e gave us a unified rules system. The same system governed everything, and the rules were written to be interpreted by that system. While clear writing and good flavor text ensured that intent of the system was always clear, rules arguments revolved around nitpicky dicussion of exact phraseology and word parseing. We had all been programming for a decade and had learned to think like computers. Rather than intent, rules discussions read like command interpreters.

In 4e it seems like the shift to computer like thinking is total. The PHB reads like an exercise in object oriented programming complete with bolded keywords. The system is sufficiently divorced from any fictional reality we might be emulating that intent is frequently impossible to guess at and the writing offers no help. Rules discussion are entirely centered on phrase parseing and intent isn't even brought up.

Have computers brought about a shift in the way we think about games?

 

[Glyfair]

During second edition computers became commonplace and the link between gamers and computers became well established as both appealed to the same sorts of people.

Computers really started becoming more common in the AD&D era (late 70's early 80's). There was even a computer column in the early 80's in Dragon ("the Electric Eye.") They weren't as powerful as they are now, but one of the first programs I wrote was one that randomly generated Top Secret characters.

 

[Mercule]

During second edition computers became commonplace and the link between gamers and computers became well established as both appealed to the same sorts of people.

Erm... I learned to program, on my C64, by writing character creation/maintenance and treasure generation programs for both the Red Box Basic set and AD&D 1E.

I'm not saying there isn't a relationship between the complexity of games and something societal. I'm just not in agreement that it's related to computers. I also disagree that 4e is more computer-like than 3e.

 

[Gort]

Although I somewhat resent the OP since it just seems like a long-winded way of saying, "4e is World of Warcraft!" like we've heard a million times already, I must say I'm looking forward to a 4e computer game. It just seems like it would work so much more smoothly than 3e did.

I had high hopes for Neverwinter Nights, but once you got to high levels, the number of buffs you had to cast on yourself and your party just got ridiculous. Spellcasters were worth ten fighters at high levels, which is a pity, since I like playing fighters. Save or die spells (as well as "save or suck" spells with hugely debilitating effects for ridiculous durations) were all over the place. Every party member had twenty ongoing magical effects from various spells you'd cast on them, and you had to recast them before every fight, which took ages.

I'm looking forward to a 4e game.

 

[El Mahdi]

I searched the 3E, 3.5E, and the 4E rules for definitions of "effects" and didn't find computers listed anywhere. However, with the vast proliferation of "effects" throughout the systems, my ability to find a specific one may have been "affected". I do agree that computers have "effected" much change, and those changes have "affected" RPG's considerably (IMHO).

 

[Andor]

Although I somewhat resent the OP since it just seems like a long-winded way of saying, "4e is World of Warcraft!" like we've heard a million times already, I must say I'm looking forward to a 4e computer game. It just seems like it would work so much more smoothly than 3e did.

Gah. I am NOT saying 4e is World of Warcraft. Period. At all.

I am saying that the approach in the writing of the rules and text of the games over the course of multiple editions seems to have drifted from a prose based description of the game clearly intended to convey the authors thoughts to the reader to a simpler and more 'plain language programming' sort of writing style wherein the game books are filled mostly instructions and there is less of an attempt to convey the author's thoughts to the reader.

One of my thoughts when first reading the 4e PHB was that with a well written command interpreter you wouldn't even need to type to make 4e the CRPG, you could just feed the PHB into a scanner.

I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm not attacking 4e. I'm wondering if the change in authorial style over the years is related to the growing pervasivness and influence of computers on our society.

P.S: For the love of bits stop telling me about the early days of computing, I remember using an Apple Pet (with 4k memory!) for god's sake. I know we all cut our teeth making character generators in BASIC. However a general market book in those days wold never have been written in a style that assumed the reader was familiar with OOP constructs like keywords and function calls (which is what the [w] is.)

 

[Andor]

I searched the 3E, 3.5E, and the 4E rules for definitions of "effects" and didn't find computers listed anywhere. However, with the vast proliferation of "effects" throughout the systems, my ability to find a specific one may have been "affected". I do agree that computers have "effected" much change, and those changes have "affected" RPG's considerably (IMHO).

I knew someone was going to call me on that, but I can never remember the difference and couldn't be bothered to look it up.

 

[El Mahdi]

In a more serious vein, and more to the subject of the OP: I think that computers have not only affected RPG's, but they affect how we view everything we do. The logical, binary thinking that programming requires, seems to have become common place in almost every facet of modern life. It seems this is how almost all information is presented nowadays. There is so much information available today, that I feel it's necessary that information be presented in this manner. As the rules for D&D become more and more complex (as they tried to "codify" more and more options and scenarios), the rule books had to be written in this manner in order to be usable.

 

[cdrcjsn]

I am saying that the approach in the writing of the rules and text of the games over the course of multiple editions seems to have drifted from a prose based description of the game clearly intended to convey the authors thoughts to the reader to a simpler and more 'plain language programming' sort of writing style wherein the game books are filled mostly instructions and there is less of an attempt to convey the author's thoughts to the reader.

Concise writing where rules are divorced from flavor text as much as possible doesn't make 4e a programming manual.

I can't recall how many arugments I had with my group over rules discussion in 1e, 2e and 3e because of "prose based description". "Fluff" language used to describe "crunch" caused so many rule interpretations that I welcome any effort to minimize that.

I want flavor text in my campaign backgrounds, not my rule set.

 

[Scribble]

I am saying that the approach in the writing of the rules and text of the games over the course of multiple editions seems to have drifted from a prose based description of the game clearly intended to convey the authors thoughts to the reader to a simpler and more 'plain language programming' sort of writing style wherein the game books are filled mostly instructions and there is less of an attempt to convey the author's thoughts to the reader.

I don't think this has to do with computers specifically. I think it has more to do with games and game designers learning and growing.

When the game first started it was a couple of guys in an old house writing pamphlets full of rules in ways that had really never been done before. Now games are designed by people who have actual "game designer" titles designing rules with knowledge of what works, what hasn't worked, and what their fan base wants.

It's just a case of the hobby growing up. I think if you look at almost any hobby that grows into something bigger you'll see similar issues.