Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 3971472" data-attributes="member: 32740">Never thought much about it until just now.&nbsp; I think Celebrim is close but is providing for too many &quot;generations&quot;.&nbsp; If it were left to me to define it I'd categorize them as:1st Generation - D&amp;D and it's first imitators.&nbsp; Games created before anyone had the first clue what RPG's really were or could be.&nbsp; Not designed - created.&nbsp; There wasn't really any &quot;design&quot; to be done.&nbsp; As it was an entirely new concept it was simply thrown against the wall in various iterations and whatever stuck there, stuck there.2nd Generation - RPG's that were to some extent beginning to be designed.&nbsp; By seeing what worked, what didn't, and contemplating what actually could be, they included rules or approaches with genuine intent, planning, forethought.&nbsp; Yet they still involve as much random experimentation as DESIGN.3rd Generation - RPG's with structure based more heavily in game theory from the bottom up, not in simply trying to fix/replace failed/malfunctioning portions of previous RPG's piecemeal.&nbsp; Games which ARE designed even though they may yet be based on old, traditional structures from previous generations.Now, no matter whose definitions you use this isn't going to be the sort of classification that you can unequivocally assign a given game/edition into as it's all quite subjective.&nbsp; Or at least until you GET widely accepted definitions of what the categories of classification are and what the aim is in categorizing them along such lines in the first place.EDIT: For my money it is, first and foremost, a CHRONOLOGICAL classification - hence the term &quot;Generation&quot; being used.&nbsp; Whether the resulting game was rules light/heavy, class vs. skill, or whatever is of secondary importance and interest.&nbsp; However, you can still have RPG's which won't cooperate with a generational approach to classification by virtue of being &quot;ahead of thier time&quot; or by ignoring/defying lessons learned from or revisiting previous generations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 3971472, member: 32740"] Never thought much about it until just now. I think Celebrim is close but is providing for too many "generations". If it were left to me to define it I'd categorize them as: 1st Generation - D&D and it's first imitators. Games [I]created[/I] before anyone had the first clue what RPG's really were or could be. Not designed - created. There wasn't really any "design" to be done. As it was an entirely new concept it was simply thrown against the wall in various iterations and whatever stuck there, stuck there. 2nd Generation - RPG's that were to some extent beginning to be designed. By seeing what worked, what didn't, and contemplating what actually could be, they included rules or approaches with genuine intent, planning, forethought. Yet they still involve as much random experimentation as DESIGN. 3rd Generation - RPG's with structure based more heavily in game theory from the bottom up, not in simply trying to fix/replace failed/malfunctioning portions of previous RPG's piecemeal. Games which ARE designed even though they may yet be based on old, traditional structures from previous generations. Now, no matter whose definitions you use this isn't going to be the sort of classification that you can unequivocally assign a given game/edition into as it's all quite subjective. Or at least until you GET widely accepted definitions of what the categories of classification are and what the aim is in categorizing them along such lines in the first place. EDIT: For my money it is, first and foremost, a CHRONOLOGICAL classification - hence the term "Generation" being used. Whether the resulting game was rules light/heavy, class vs. skill, or whatever is of secondary importance and interest. However, you can still have RPG's which won't cooperate with a generational approach to classification by virtue of being "ahead of thier time" or by ignoring/defying lessons learned from or revisiting previous generations. [/QUOTE]

Verification