Quote from: Old Geezer;790466And we also knew it was somehow MORE.  But we had a whole lot of trouble describing exactly in what way.  And once the term "Role Playing Game" appeared, people said "YEAH!  FUCKING YEAH!  THAT's what this game is!"

My first introduction to gaming was when I was in Junior High in 1978 and my friend and I discovered Avalon Hill and SPI hex and counter wargames.

Slowly news of Dungeons & Dragons circulated in my hometown set in rural northwest PA. When my friend and I got a hold of the Holmes Basic Set. right off we knew something was different about this particular game. Even though we competed hard against each other with the wargame we had, our session with the boxed set did not have same spirit of competitiveness that despite there being only the two of us playing.

The sense was more that we were competing against the dungeon and the dungeon master was an important cog to make the game work not an opponent that needed to be beaten.

Slightly later, I was exposed in Boy Scouts to multiple players playing with one dungeon masters. During winter scouting events early darkness meant there was a lot of evening free time. In the late 70s resulted us in filling that with Dungeons  & Dragons sessions.

Quote from: Old Geezer;790458People -- LOTS of people, all over the place -- REALLY need to realize there was a lot less "rigid academic work" and "involved logical thought" and a lot more "pulling stuff out of our asses at a moment's notice."

People have assumed that, and that games have evolved as people actually, you know, start applying some ideas, design, and testing cycles of observing what works and doesn't.

And then aged fogies act all aggrieved at the notion that games could evolve, because the original game was designed to work like that ON PURPOSE, goddammit.

So, uh. Dude.

Quote from: Will;790494People have assumed that, and that games have evolved as people actually, you know, start applying some ideas, design, and testing cycles of observing what works and doesn't.

And then aged fogies act all aggrieved at the notion that games could evolve, because the original game was designed to work like that ON PURPOSE, goddammit.

So, uh. Dude.

No denies that games evolve or change over time. Where things get annoying is that is also considered as in the same light as technological progress.

Progress in game design about an increase in diversity. An increase in the choices of design and presentation available to the game designer.

Yeah, but if you're claiming new games aren't better, but different, and then say 'yeah, we just half-assed everything,' I'm going to give you a Tommy Lee Jones look.

If you didn't actually think any of your shit through, dude, it's pretty likely some new stuff is going to attempt what you did, better.

'Evolve' is not a synonym for 'improve'... at best it might mean a recent game appeals to current gamer mindsets and becomes popular, if only for a moment. But it's only 'better' in the minds of the audience that finds it so.
I agree that diversity of choice is the real matter of progress... moreso if those diverse games are actually getting played (I own a wide variety of games, but the menu of what folks are willing to play seems to remain constricted).

Games design = technology is the wasted breath of the universe.

Quote from: One Horse Town;790521Games design = technology is the wasted breath of the universe.

   I'm not sure the "game design as product of unholy inspiration" ('unholy' because so much of this hobby seems to favor the vile, the depraved and the demonic) that seems to be assumed as an alternative is any better ...

   IMO (and I speak as a pure layman here), game design is an art or craft. There are ways it can be improved, but there are also different techniques that are only 'better' and 'worse' in context of a specific goal.

Quote from: Will;790510If you didn't actually think any of your shit through, dude, it's pretty likely some new stuff is going to attempt what you did, better.

Sometimes the new stuff is better, sometimes only different, and sometimes worse.

It is the ones that are different, that are convinced that they they are the same only better, that end up being problematic.

The game remains ze same indeed.

Quote from: Will;790510Yeah, but if you're claiming new games aren't better, but different, and then say 'yeah, we just half-assed everything,' I'm going to give you a Tommy Lee Jones look.

If you didn't actually think any of your shit through, dude, it's pretty likely some new stuff is going to attempt what you did, better.

It works in conjunction with Old Geezer comment on his group making shit up as they go.

It is perfectly consistent with not having a wealth of options to choose from. Things are only better because of have more choices to draw from when making rulings. Which choice is the "better" choice is subjective.

For you Ascending AC may do wonders for other games it is THACO, for others it is using a matrix table.  My opinion is that the vast majority of gamers prefer Ascending AC based on anecdotes and my experience. But I also have met gamers that do better with THACO and table look up.

But.. but... Ascending AC requires fewer steps and just a greater than comparison. Yes but that doesn't make it universally better than THACO or table lookup. It just makes it better for MOST people. Many other view or likes things differently enough that the other two works better for them.

And to tie it back to your original point, that why the fans of THACO and Table lookup get really fucking annoyed with other people when they act like Ascending ACs is the best solution of all time.

I been doing this a long enough to know that there is no one design or method that applies to all gamers all the time including what I do. Which is why I try to learn a variety of techniques so that I can tailor my approach, to a point, to what best for the group.

Quote from: Will;790494People have assumed that, and that games have evolved as people actually, you know, start applying some ideas, design, and testing cycles of observing what works and doesn't.

And then aged fogies act all aggrieved at the notion that games could evolve, because the original game was designed to work like that ON PURPOSE, goddammit.

So, uh. Dude.

No, but thank you for playing.

Look at the conversation.  People are talking about how the term "role playing" got to be applied to these kinds of games 40 years ago, and a lot more about how things were done 40 years ago.

So, uh.  Dude.

Quote from: Haffrung;790386There is no mention in the Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, or 1E AD&D of positioning and moving minis on a grid. None. Not a single one of the examples of play and combat reference grids and minis.

Dungeon maps were used by DMs, not players. In my experience, it was regarded as cheating for players to even look at them. And there were virtually no tactical-scale maps in published adventures. No battle mats. If D&D was primarily a game played on a tactical grid, why weren't those common commercial products? Why didn't the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief include a skirmish-scale map of the king's hall?

Ok, no grid? Well that was way before my time. I am a nineties kid. Well, maybe that comes from the later editions then. Maybe 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0? I really don't know. I never said it was default. But it seems to be some people play it like that.

I am really in favor of GM descriptions, because those combat grids break immersion. They provide clarity but it becomes to tactical for me and plays like a CCG where it's all about the stats. I always played Warhammer fantasy on a grid btw. But I identify that with listening to Greenday. Something you do when you are 15 years old.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;790488Old Geezer, what area of history did you focus on (just curious, as that was my degree as well).

Medieval Europe.  My main prof was Bernie Bachrach at the U of MN.

Quote from: Old Geezer;790463As somebody with an actual history degree I'm VERY dubious about such methods.   This method is how some English wargamer in the 1970s concluded that the stirrup didn't make any difference in combat, because he got on his horse without stirrups and rode around waving a stick over his head.

Or the professor that "proved" that soldiers could barely move in full plate by sticking some students in it and telling them to run around. Or that chainmail is useless because someone lays it on a hard wooden target and shows it getting rent by arrows. Or that chainmail is too heavy to be worn long because they rolled it up in a ball and weighed it... or just picked it up in their hands. yeesh...

So we end up with mechanics are bad in an RPG because someone used them poorly. Newsflash Wick. People can be just as big if not bigger asses in RPGs with minimal to zero mechanics. They can be dicks in board games with zero PRing just as easily.

Hell, two of the worst problem players I've had so far were problems in the RPing part and barely interacted with the mechanics side.

Quote from: Haffrung;790386The thing that gets on my tits about the whole "D&D's roots were a tabletop wargame" meme, usually spouted by 3E and 4E fans to defend their games...

I've never seen that said as a "defense of the game". I have seen it said as a way of pointing out the bat-shit crazy people who think that miniatures were never used in D&D prior to 2000 are, in fact, bat-shit crazy.

You know, after seeing this trailer for the upcoming John Wick biopic, I think everyone here should know better than to disagree with this guy.