Philosophical question: Do games become "obsolete"?

[Psion]

It's a little depressing, frankly, how few gamers actually use their imaginations and instead rely on a steady supply of shiny new books to stimulate their creativity.

Why is that depressing? Creativity takes time and mental energy; those whose day to day activities tax them mentally like to kick back and relax a litte. Is that a travesty?

And what do you assume that they are not continuing to use their imaginations? Creativity flows when what you are doing is exciting; games stay exciting by exploring fresh avenues. New books can be muses, not just "crutches."

 

[Umbran]

Took this from a thread at RPGnet:

Hint: Games do not become obsolete. Games are not a technology.

Hint: Games do become obsolete, in much the same way technology does - because in a sense a game is a technology. It is a system of logics, just like your computer. The fact that the system works with different hardware is of no difference, really

Most tech becomes obsolete in that nobody supports it, because the market has decided something else is better. The problem with an 8-track player is simply that you can't find parts, service, or tapes for it anymore. So,t here's no much point in owning it.

Same for a game - if you can't find players or supplements, it is like an 8-track player.

Some folks then respond by saying, "But the *mechanics* have improved! The game is *evolving*!" But that's another metaphor. Games do not literally evolve; they change over time. Change alone is not evolution; evolution implies progress.

Evolution does not imply progress. The "progress" view of evolution is one based ont eh idea that humans were objectively better than all other species, and that every living thing could be ranked on a single ladder. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Evolution implies change and survival, but neithe rone of those really means "progress".

Remember - being able to objectively measure the changes in a thing is not the same as being able to objectively measure progress. We conflate the two for technology, because we have special frameworks to measure technology's performance, relative to our own particular needs. But is an alligator "progress" beyond a shark? They are both supremely adapted to their niches, and those niches don't really interact. The alligator can't work the deep oceans, and the shark can't work in the rivers. Neither one can work where the mountain lion does. They are simply apples and oranges.

I think, in large part, the same holds true for games - The territory that RPGs live in today is not the same as it was in 1990, and that wasn't the same as it was in 1976. I don't think we can say that one mechanic is objectively better than another in any broad sense, because "better" is always defined in terms of "better or worse at doing what I want done".

We can talk in terms of the general market, rather like you can talk about an animal in a climate. Right now, the overal prevailing climate may favor certain types of games. But you still have local weather conditions that may be good for pockets of oddballs to survive

 

[Psion]

Good post, Umbran.

 

[LostSoul]

Games get better.

I am a big fan of the old Star Wars d6 system. But as much as I am a fan of it, I realize that there are newer games out there that can give me better play of the type I want. (I don't think d20 is it for Star Wars. )

 

[Teflon Billy]

But the problem is that whether or not a game is a "marked improvement" is often a matter of debate.

Is BAB an improvement over THAC0? Depends on what your criteria for "improvement" is.

Why did you cut, well, basically exactly that out of my quote that you were responding to?

...All that's up for argument is a definition of "better"...

 

[MerricB]

Looking for a definition for Obsolete:

1. No longer in use
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction

One can immediately see that #1 is true. Games *definitely* become obsolete by that definition.

Is #2 true? Yes. Fashions in games change.

This says nothing about viability or playability of the games, however.

Cheers!

 

[Plane Sailing]

Dr. Screampunk, while it is always nice to see new members on the boards, please take a quick read of the board rules - you will find that insulting other posters is not allowed, which is why I've deleted your post in this thread.

If you would like this position clarified, please email me.

Regards

 

[jasper]

Hmm Merric has the right of it. How many of you play Candyland, Life, Monopoly, Easy Money, Hangman, Battleship, King Oil, Carrier Strike, Squad leader, Catch the Road Runner, Snoopy vs the Red Baron, Kerpluck, Don't break the ice, Clue, Where in world is Carmen Santigio, Mission impossible, Don't tip the waiter, operation, Jaws, mouse trap, Kojak, Tank Battle, popeye the sailor man, Berumda Triangle and twister.


I think the question needs to be reworded due people getting hung up on the word Obsolete.
1. Do games lose their audience and go out of print due lost audience?
2. Do games which are still in print get better?
3. Do games which are still in print but with rules changes get better?

1. It depends on the game. Some games I played as kid have went out print like Jaws, others like kerpluk, monopoly are still in print.
2. It depends on the game. Some games the pieces improve and others the pieces get cheaper. Look at some the risk games. Use to have big and little wood pieces for armies now plastic. Look at Life. The one I had seventies the board was thicker and playing pieces heavier than today's product.
3. Again it depends on the game tratics 1 vs Tractics 2 rules were changed and reedited. OD&D (the one true game) vs 3.5 D&D (the one playable game) is open to debate and fanatics will gripe if you disagree with them.

As aside some old wind bags here have came down on newer players wanting and using the splatbooks. Being an old wind bag let me stick a pin in them. Sorry guys either you had the great luck to have great players in your early years(in this case I curse you because I got the bad players you did get) or you have forgotten the fights of changing npc classes in Dragon to pc classes, Judges Guild stuff in Greyhawk, Talon and his rocket powered sword for the Sword and Sorcerer movie, the Thudarr clones etc. Or that you can turn to exact page of dmg for a rule lookup or magic item.

 

[bubbalin]

A point I'm begging to make, thought it probably serves no purpose than to muddy the waters... But what is an objective assessment? Is an 'objective' assessment just an indication of the predisposition of the assessor?

Basically, if you move the target, you can always hit it.

 

[Odhanan]

If obsolete is "outmoded", then yes, games do become obsolete. That's just not what I understood by the quote. The quote makes a comparison between technology and games, and there I find this is the idea of progress, or "better games replacing bad ones" that is targeted.

This is where I agree with the quote.

Hint: Games do become obsolete, in much the same way technology does - because in a sense a game is a technology. It is a system of logics, just like your computer. The fact that the system works with different hardware is of no difference, really.

Fundamentally, what changed in RPGs over 30 years? What objectively improved over the logic of OD&D?

Role-playing immersion? The co-authors of D&D were already advocates of immersion and role-playing instead of roll-playing.

Adding skills to the game? Players of OD&D are/were using the stats for it. Fundamentally there's no improvement here: this is still a die roll under/over a number picturing a related affinity of the character.

Less Saves? Then whichever is good, more stats (adding skills) or less stats (reducing the number of saves)?

What RPG did fundamentally improve the way RPGs were conceived prior to their publication and why, objectively? I do have opinions about which game variations I like and why. What this or that game brought to the way RPGs are conceived. But none of these opinions is a critera to demonstrate an objective technological improvement.

The fact that people disagree and debate on nearly all matters of RPG design points out to me that RPGs don't become technologically and inherently obsolete. Some people consider them obsolete because they are outmoded, and this fulfills our definition #2 in this thread. But some people still play outmoded games and find them good/entertaining/satisfying for whatever they are searching for by gaming.

One can immediately see that #1 is true. Games *definitely* become obsolete by that definition.

I can't agree with this. Doesn't matter the number of people still playing a game: look at diaglo for instance: He plays OD&D, doesn't he? So the game is still in use, even if that's a half dozen guys judged "deluded" by the majority of gamers. Some people still play RIFTS, or RuneQuest, or the old Talislanta, or whatever games we can think of, unless maybe if they were, from the very start, fatally flawed in their design.