D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Primitive Screwhead]

I cant really speak on the other things like exception based design, but I don't see how modular design (unless I misunderstand the term) was borrowed from computer science. Even if it did exist in computer science that doesn't mean it was brought form that discipline into rpgs. Modular approaches to design have been around in rpgs for quite some time now.

Being a programmer, I think it is the structured approach to modular design in which your core framework is designed to interface easily with the modular components. Kinda like the USB port provides a standard interface with external devices, an RPG that has a coherent framework can accept various mods without out-balancing things.

For instance, spell point systems in 3x in theory are a direct swap for vancian magic, but the flexibility and nova capabilities changes how the session plays out.. so the module actually changes the game.
Ideally you should be able to play a vancian mage, a spell point mage, a sorcerer, a psion, and a jedi all in the same game system without one character affecting the groups choice of playstyle.

Re: MtG and art. I was working a game store when that game first came out and I guarantee that the black-border cards did not have awesome, cutting edge art. The game is successful because it is easy to learn, has alot of complexity, ever widening choices, and timed just right to savor wins and not get soured over losses. And because it is addictive, you *know* that your deck can best the other guys if only you had the right card come out.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Being a programmer, I think it is the structured approach to modular design in which your core framework is designed to interface easily with the modular components. Kinda like the USB port provides a standard interface with external devices, an RPG that has a coherent framework can accept various mods without out-balancing things.

For instance, spell point systems in 3x in theory are a direct swap for vancian magic, but the flexibility and nova capabilities changes how the session plays out.. so the module actually changes the game.
Ideally you should be able to play a vancian mage, a spell point mage, a sorcerer, a psion, and a jedi all in the same game system without one character affecting the groups choice of playstyle.

.

I can see a similarity, but I still don't see that it was directly borrowed from computer programing.

 

[Hussar]

I can see a similarity, but I still don't see that it was directly borrowed from computer programing.

But, no one's saying that anything has to be directly borrowed. What has been said is that there is absolutely nothing video game design can offer RPG design.

I'm thinking that that position is a little bit extreme.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, no one's saying that anything has to be directly borrowed. What has been said is that there is absolutely nothing video game design can offer RPG design.

I'm thinking that that position is a little bit extreme.

I am sure there may be things that could be borrowed. But in terms of things unique to video games, I am not so sure. I brought up modularity because it arose in rpgs independenlty of computers. So there was no need to look to video games to achieve develop the idea.

I think what I object to is this idea that RPGs must or should look to video games for design development. I think they are very different mediums. I just haven't encountered anything video games do, that I want my rpgs to do. Uually in these threads the pro-video game crowd seems to be saying that rpgs are fialing because they are not taking enough of a cue from multiplayer online games. Again, I don't want to reitigate debates about what mechanics are or are not video game inspired, but my impression is the opposite, that they have been trying too hard lately to emulate other mediums and borrow design from things like video games. Again, just my opinion.

 

[B.T.]

Yeah, no.

WotC tried that when they published their very own RPG (before buying Ars Magica and D&D) -- Everway.

Gorgeous book. Lots of full-colour art.

Didn't sell particularly well (and possibly cost more than the MSRP).

Everway is awful, so no amount of art could save it.

 

[Nagol]

Everway is awful, so no amount of art could save it.

I lost my copy over the years so I'm going from memory.

It's style is certainly very different from D&D, but it's not an awful game. It is quite playable.

It is strongly narrative in style and the fortune deck can be amusing to interpret.

It's generally not my style for running, but I was disappointed in its short shelf-life. WotC retired it almost immediately after I bought a copy (And they bought D&D).

 

[triqui]

Prone Shooter is a feat that does nothing. Paizo has published material that is worse than nothing, because nothing wouldn't take up a feat slot.

And Ferrari made a car that is prone of bursting in fire, the 458 Italia. Fortunatelly we know about the fallacy of hasty generalization. Otherwise, we could think every car produced by Ferrari is bad, and every game mechanic produced by Paizo is poor.

 

[triqui]

I cant really speak on the other things like exception based design, but I don't see how modular design (unless I misunderstand the term) was borrowed from computer science. Even if it did exist in computer science that doesn't mean it was brought form that discipline into rpgs. Modular approaches to design have been around in rpgs for quite some time now.

Modular approaches to design have been in computer science far longer than that. And several terms, ways to work, scientific approachs, and class definitions come from programming, especially from object oriented programming.

 

[B.T.]

And Ferrari made a car that is prone of bursting in fire, the 458 Italia. Fortunatelly we know about the fallacy of hasty generalization. Otherwise, we could think every car produced by Ferrari is bad, and every game mechanic produced by Paizo is poor.

The difference is that (a) mechanics exist in a closed system and can be tested with reproducible results, and (b) almost all of Paizo's unique mechanics (mechanics they didn't crib from 3e) have been mediocre at best.

 

[triqui]

The difference is that (a) mechanics exist in a closed system and can be tested with reproducible results, and (b) almost all of Paizo's unique mechanics (mechanics they didn't crib from 3e) have been mediocre at best.

As you mentioned Prone Shooting, which is a feat, I guess you mean all the feats from Paizo who dont came from 3e are mediocre. I disagree. Do you have something to back up your ivory tower bold statement, other than your personal opinion, which is not worth any more than mine?