Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4124641" data-attributes="member: 18280">Ah, but we must always remember when using this analogy that evolution isn't general &quot;improvement&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is, always, moving an organism to better fit its environment.&nbsp; This might mean that it becomes highly specialized for a given environment, or it might mean that it becomes more generally capable without being specialized.Looking at the analogy this way, some of the complaints about 4e (actually, almost all of them) are that it is becoming too highly specialized for too narrow an environment.&nbsp; Hence, the complaints about non-standard core classes and races, the strange names given to certain game elements, etc.&nbsp; (I.e., one does not &quot;wyvern goldly&quot;, although one might shape spells.)Likewise, 3.x was a fantastic &quot;generalist&quot; game, the complaints about which are twofold (IMHO):*&nbsp; &quot;Too complex&quot;:&nbsp; I.e., its specialist actions are undesirable.*&nbsp; &quot;Too simple&quot;:&nbsp; Aka, the Lowest Common Denominator arguement.&nbsp; I.e., it is too generalist.A game really can be too complex and too simple all at the same time, if the simplicity and the complexity are not where you want them to be.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Discovering what you don't like, and why you don't like it, about a game is important.&nbsp; However, it is highly unlikely that someone else's &quot;perfect game&quot; is also going to be your perfect game.&nbsp; The importance of the OGL, IMHO, is that it granted third parties to offer all kinds of &quot;fixes&quot;, allowing groups to tailor a near-approximation of their &quot;perfect game&quot; without doing all the &quot;heavy lifting&quot;.&nbsp; I don't know that the GSL will do the same -- comments make me suspect that it is going to specifically avoid allowing the same.Pathfinder, thus far, is almost completely OGC.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is, in my book, a good thing.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4124641, member: 18280"] Ah, but we must always remember when using this analogy that evolution isn't general "improvement". It is, always, moving an organism to better fit its environment. This might mean that it becomes highly specialized for a given environment, or it might mean that it becomes more generally capable without being specialized. Looking at the analogy this way, some of the complaints about 4e (actually, almost all of them) are that it is becoming too highly specialized for too narrow an environment. Hence, the complaints about non-standard core classes and races, the strange names given to certain game elements, etc. (I.e., one does not "wyvern goldly", although one might shape spells.) Likewise, 3.x was a fantastic "generalist" game, the complaints about which are twofold (IMHO): * "Too complex": I.e., its specialist actions are undesirable. * "Too simple": Aka, the Lowest Common Denominator arguement. I.e., it is too generalist. A game really can be too complex and too simple all at the same time, if the simplicity and the complexity are not where you want them to be. ;) Discovering what you don't like, and why you don't like it, about a game is important. However, it is highly unlikely that someone else's "perfect game" is also going to be your perfect game. The importance of the OGL, IMHO, is that it granted third parties to offer all kinds of "fixes", allowing groups to tailor a near-approximation of their "perfect game" without doing all the "heavy lifting". I don't know that the GSL will do the same -- comments make me suspect that it is going to specifically avoid allowing the same. Pathfinder, thus far, is almost completely OGC. That is, in my book, a good thing. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification