What would Gary do?

[EATherrian]

Including rolling ability scores.

So, we're talking Traveller here?

ed. Beaten to the punch I see.

 

[MerricB]

Actually, based on what Gary's been playing recently, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 4e D&D from him being a lot more free-form... in the oD&D mode.

Cheers!

 

[Engilbrand]

If George Washington suddenly popped back up in charge of our country, what would he do? What would he think?

It's a scary thought. Both are men who had their time. Washington did with America what he could. Would he be a good leader today? I doubt it. Was he even a really good leader back then? I don't really know. But I do know that he would want to take things in a direction that would be out of touch with the modern world.

Gygax made a game over 30 years ago. It was a good game for the time. It has since evolved and matured into what we have today. It's updating with the world and the changing interests of people. If he were suddenly back in charge of it, I don't think that it would continue to update. He would want to try to take it back to what it was in the beginning.

Neither case really interests me all that much. Even though a lot of the older generation might love the chance to go "back to the basics", it would ignore the younger generation and it would hamper the natural evolution of the game.

 

[Fifth Element]

I erred in making it look like a quote; my point was merely that the question was dodged in such a manner. And while I've certainly got my conclusions as to Mr. Gygax's character, I'd advise against basing your own conclusions on mine. I'm simply not interested enough in his doings to be an ironclad source for information on the subject.

Sorry, I meant to say paraphrase rather than quote. I knew it wasn't a direct quote.

 

[Scarbonac]

All right! I rolled the Haughty Slattern!

Everybody rolled the Haughty Slattern...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Gygax made a game over 30 years ago. It was a good game for the time. It has since evolved and matured into what we have today.

It has changed.

It hasn't "matured" in any way that I can see, and so far as I can tell, games do not have "natural evolution".

Newer does not equal better. Conversely, neither does older equal better.

That said, I imagine that the first thing that Gary would do in ensure that he wouldn't wake up one morning to discover that his hard work belonged to someone else....again!....before committing Word One to the page.

Other than that, I don't have any clue what Gary would do specifically. In general terms, he'd take what he saw as the best & ditch the rest....exactly what any of us would do. We only differ on what is "the best".


RC

 

[Ulrick]

The relevant part from the interview:

"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."

Love that quote!

But you left out the best part:

"Now, should I tell you what I really think?"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It has changed.

It hasn't "matured" in any way that I can see, and so far as I can tell, games do not have "natural evolution".

They have. Games that are played more than other games are apparently for some reason "fitter" (even if the reason is not mechanics, but good marketing).

Game Mechanics also have a kind of evolution. Basically, those mechanics you see in multiple systems or multiple editions of the same line are also "fitter".
Design concepts that survive multiple editions or being found in multiple editions are also fitter.

Games that incorporate "proven" concepts and mechanics can be seen as a result of evolution.

But, just as in the natural evolution, just because something worked in the past doesn't mean it will always work. Evolution is not a "grand master plan to perfection". It's a trial and error concept, and things that worked well for a time might face a new challenge (climatic change, asteroid hitting earth, the market changing) they can't overcome, while older, previously seemingly "weaker" things begin to shine.

The current "ecosphere" of Games seems to favor games that provide rules to resolve very different kinds of situations (exploration, social encounters and the classic "combat") and give players to express their characters style and personality within the rules, while maintaining a sense of balance between characters.

Maybe in 10 years, people will want to go away from the "character builds" concepts and prefer a "simpler" game where the DM decides things on the spot.

 

[Raven Crowking]

They have. Games that are played more than other games are apparently for some reason "fitter" (even if the reason is not mechanics, but good marketing).

Sorry, but I don't see this as a natural evolution of games. I wouldn't even agree that 3e is played more than 1e, for that matter.

Game Mechanics also have a kind of evolution. Basically, those mechanics you see in multiple systems or multiple editions of the same line are also "fitter".

Again, this isn't very Darwinian of you. "More popular" =/= fitter. In a Darwinian sense, you can't know what is "fitter" between A and B until either A or B die an ignonimous death. And, even then, you can only talk about them being fitter within a given context. Overall "fitness" has not defining characteristics, and can be related as much to luck as to any intrinsic value.

Design concepts that survive multiple editions or being found in multiple editions are also fitter.

Ever hear of tonsils? The appendix?

BTW, wouldn't that make gnomes automatically fitter than Dragonborn and Tieflings at this juncture?

I could go on, but it seems that you are trying to tie ideas of natural selection into a model which is based on anything but "natural" selection, and it seems to me that some of your ideas about the Darwinian model are questionable as well.

I suggest we agree to disagree on this one.

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorry, but I don't see this as a natural evolution of games. I wouldn't even agree that 3e is played more than 1e, for that matter.



Again, this isn't very Darwinian of you. "More popular" =/= fitter. In a Darwinian sense, you can't know what is "fitter" between A and B until either A or B die an ignonimous death. And, even then, you can only talk about them being fitter within a given context. Overall "fitness" has not defining characteristics, and can be related as much to luck as to any intrinsic value.

I am afraid than that it would be hard to say something has evolved at all, if we only base evolution on being the only survivor from 2 variants. Humans have evolved from ape-like beings, yet there still are ape-like beings. Some of them died, yes, but not all.

Ever hear of tonsils? The appendix?

Vancian Magic in D&D terms?

BTW, wouldn't that make gnomes automatically fitter than Dragonborn and Tieflings at this juncture?

Not neccessarily. Maybe 4th edition and the current player base is the comet or climate change that leads to the extinction of a species that lived for a long time.

I could go on, but it seems that you are trying to tie ideas of natural selection into a model which is based on anything but "natural" selection, and it seems to me that some of your ideas about the Darwinian model are questionable as well.

My personal view is that evolution can be applied to most concepts where things change.
Because all things change in reaction to an environment, to in some sense better fit into it. But not always is change needed, and not always does change work. Change is just a mutation, which might happen by accident or due to reaction to outward influences. Evolution is a mutation/change turning out to be better suited to its enviromnent.

But nobody should misinterpret evolution as making things better in a general sense, as being an "directed force" with a set goal in a mind (it's just an emergent property of a system), and nobody should believe that "being evolved out of something" means "morally or ethical superior"...

I suggest we agree to disagree on this one.

RC

Ah, well, it would at least be easier if we do it now then after 10 pages of back & forth discussion, so yes, let's do it. (If you feel compelled to answer to anything I posted, I hope I can restrain my urge to post something in response. )