Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 5914498" data-attributes="member: 85555">I don't think the comparison holds. &nbsp;A more apt comparison is film making. Techniques and styles change over time, they aren't neccessarily better than the ones that came before (arguably a lot of the style changes of the 90s for example were worse than what came before). Even then, it is still not a good comparison. Games are their own things. Game mechanics are quite unique and any analogy is going to break down. Bottom line is just because a mechanic was introduced in 1999 that doesn't mean it is better than a mechanic introduced in 1989 or 1978. And a revision of an existing system is not always an improvement. &nbsp;The skill system of 3E is one such an example. You say it was more robust, but whether that is better for play or not is debatable. In my opinion it covered far too much ground and having skills for things like diplomacy, intimidate and spot introduced bigger problems to play than they solved (by interfering with the player's interaction with the fictional environment). This isn't the only interpretation of 3E skills (many people see them as a vast improvement over NWPs). But it just shows you really can't pinpoint one edition as objectively better. Take initiative for example. Most people think shifting it to the d20 was a major innovation. I think it was terrible. I much prefer having the old mechanic of a d10 from lowest to highest for a very simple reason: counting up is easier for the GM than counting down and 1-10 is a much more manageable range than 1-20+. So while some may see unification of mechanics as inevitable and always good, there are reasons for less unified systems like 1e and 2e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 5914498, member: 85555"] I don't think the comparison holds. A more apt comparison is film making. Techniques and styles change over time, they aren't neccessarily better than the ones that came before (arguably a lot of the style changes of the 90s for example were worse than what came before). Even then, it is still not a good comparison. Games are their own things. Game mechanics are quite unique and any analogy is going to break down. Bottom line is just because a mechanic was introduced in 1999 that doesn't mean it is better than a mechanic introduced in 1989 or 1978. And a revision of an existing system is not always an improvement. The skill system of 3E is one such an example. You say it was more robust, but whether that is better for play or not is debatable. In my opinion it covered far too much ground and having skills for things like diplomacy, intimidate and spot introduced bigger problems to play than they solved (by interfering with the player's interaction with the fictional environment). This isn't the only interpretation of 3E skills (many people see them as a vast improvement over NWPs). But it just shows you really can't pinpoint one edition as objectively better. Take initiative for example. Most people think shifting it to the d20 was a major innovation. I think it was terrible. I much prefer having the old mechanic of a d10 from lowest to highest for a very simple reason: counting up is easier for the GM than counting down and 1-10 is a much more manageable range than 1-20+. So while some may see unification of mechanics as inevitable and always good, there are reasons for less unified systems like 1e and 2e. [/QUOTE]

Verification