Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 3726633" data-attributes="member: 40177">So, I realized this after 4E was announced, but I don't think the topic truly applies to 4E at all.&nbsp; Really, it's a phenomenon that crops up whenever a game releases a new edition.&nbsp; Basically, a new edition is released when a system needs some rules changes or modifications (at least, usually).&nbsp; Sometimes, it's a case of expanding on rules as the game grew (when 1e was released after OD&amp;D).&nbsp; Other times, it's a compilation of rules into a single product, for ease of use (consider 2e to 1e).&nbsp; And sometimes, the rules are changed to simplify or modify existing rules sets (3e).Now, rules changes make perfect sense when a new edition is released;&nbsp; rules snafus are going to crop up, no matter what, and the designer's job is to fix them and make play easier in the new edition.The &quot;problem&quot; is, when making a new edition, designers sometimes feel the need to change non-rules (&quot;Meta&quot; aspects, or &quot;sacred cows&quot;) aspects of the game.&nbsp; Their goal is probably to enhance the nature of the game itself by cleaning up muddy spots;&nbsp; the result is it often forces the player base to make changes to ongoing games to accomodate the new perspective on the game.Sometimes, this is easy.&nbsp; When 3e Shadowrun switched to 4e, the fact that deckers had to start moving with the group instead of &quot;jacking in&quot; (effectively &quot;going wireless&quot;) was addressed in the game world itself.&nbsp; Fair enough.Other times, it's not nearly as easy.&nbsp; When we switched to 3e D&amp;D, there were suddenly sorcerers where sorcerers hadn't existed before.&nbsp; Races changed, class abilities changed, and so on.&nbsp; the changes were drastic, and I think we all had to really re-do our campaign worlds (and more than a few collapsed altogether).The thing about all this is, the designers decide to kill a &quot;sacred cow&quot; to fix game play.&nbsp; And in the process, they are making changes to a system that they say they enjoy.&nbsp; When you fix the rules, that's fine.&nbsp; But when you change some of what, say, make D&amp;D D&amp;D, trying to change the gameplay into something new, that's another thing entirely.&nbsp; Ultimately, is it still D&amp;D when Turn Undead no longer exists?&nbsp; When Halflings are &quot;nerfed&quot; and changed into something new?&nbsp; How many changes have gnomes gone through over the years?And it's not just D&amp;D - other systems have &quot;evolved&quot; in such a way.I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this - the core conceits of Basic D&amp;D do not hold true to modern 3e.&nbsp; That designers change meta aspects of a game in search of making it better; and that I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing.I dunno.&nbsp; Just musing, here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 3726633, member: 40177"] So, I realized this after 4E was announced, but I don't think the topic truly applies to 4E at all. Really, it's a phenomenon that crops up whenever a game releases a new edition. Basically, a new edition is released when a system needs some rules changes or modifications (at least, usually). Sometimes, it's a case of expanding on rules as the game grew (when 1e was released after OD&D). Other times, it's a compilation of rules into a single product, for ease of use (consider 2e to 1e). And sometimes, the rules are changed to simplify or modify existing rules sets (3e). Now, rules changes make perfect sense when a new edition is released; rules snafus are going to crop up, no matter what, and the designer's job is to fix them and make play easier in the new edition. The "problem" is, when making a new edition, designers sometimes feel the need to change non-rules ("Meta" aspects, or "sacred cows") aspects of the game. Their goal is probably to enhance the nature of the game itself by cleaning up muddy spots; the result is it often forces the player base to make changes to ongoing games to accomodate the new perspective on the game. Sometimes, this is easy. When 3e Shadowrun switched to 4e, the fact that deckers had to start moving with the group instead of "jacking in" (effectively "going wireless") was addressed in the game world itself. Fair enough. Other times, it's not nearly as easy. When we switched to 3e D&D, there were suddenly sorcerers where sorcerers hadn't existed before. Races changed, class abilities changed, and so on. the changes were drastic, and I think we all had to really re-do our campaign worlds (and more than a few collapsed altogether). The thing about all this is, the designers decide to kill a "sacred cow" to fix game play. And in the process, they are making changes to a system that they say they enjoy. When you fix the rules, that's fine. But when you change some of what, say, make D&D [i]D&D[/i], trying to change the gameplay into something new, that's another thing entirely. Ultimately, is it still D&D when Turn Undead no longer exists? When Halflings are "nerfed" and changed into something new? How many changes have gnomes gone through over the years? And it's not just D&D - other systems have "evolved" in such a way. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this - the core conceits of Basic D&D do not hold true to modern 3e. That designers change meta aspects of a game in search of making it better; and that I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing. I dunno. Just musing, here. [/QUOTE]

Verification