I believe the usual enunciation in these contexts is "Riiiight . . . "

Just to drive home the tone and sarcasm.  

Quote from: SettembriniBecause you can´t. Because they don´t exist.
There is no "modern" in roleplaying.

Oh, sure there are. I've been playing for decades, have enough games to choke a horse and have a variety of games. There are absolutely trends in both game design and production.

But listing them wouldn't only cause you to stick your fingers in your ears and hum. So, again, why? If you want to believe that AD&D is just as modern as, say, Wild Talents, tilt away at your windmills, good sir!

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachPerhaps my favorite quotes from a single paragraph of a single post from that discussion on tBP, and why it's so amusing to me to watch people defend it as "we're just looking at it from a more modern perspective" and similar approaches...

I think it's quite telling to notice the amount of Australians posting to that thread in support of the review. One of which has never read the book! As i've noted elsewhere, the Levites are coming. It's all Pundit's fault really. Him and his silly swine war.

Quote from: One Horse TownI think it's quite telling to notice the amount of Australians posting to that thread in support of the review.

If this particular Australian were not banned from rpg.net, then he would have a few things to say about that review. Which would probably get him banned from rpg.net, but there you go.

John Kim has an excellent article looking at rpg development in terms of art movements, which I think is far more insightful than the rather nonsensical technological view.

As for Johnny Cash, I think he stands up perfectly well today, I feel no great need to categorise him as a period musician.  Good music is timeless, if it weren't we wouldn't still be listening to Hildegaard of Bingen.

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's the thing: He doesn't have to. You can all get your panties in a twist because he panned AD&D, but he doesn't have to look at it from a historical perspective. Looking at A&D with an eye for modern values and tastes is perfectly acceptable.

Seanchai

Interestingly enough, I agree: all RPGs should be judged on their own merits, and not historical significance or that persistent bugbear, nostalgia. On the other hand, I disagree that "advances in the art of roleplaying" have rendered AD&D outdated - I don't agree with the view that RPGs have "advanced". Maybe in production values, but that's not a given either... I believe Trampier, DCS and Otus to be better artists in the classical sense, for instance, than I do Todd Lockwood.

Which makes me agree with J. Arcane, I guess.

Quote from: MelanInterestingly enough, I agree: all RPGs should be judged on their own merits, and not historical significance or that persistent bugbear, nostalgia.

Very important point. What some people don't understand is that AD&D actually works. Minor revisions aside, it doesn't need special pleading.

I'm sure this is also true for a game I sadly never got to play--Rolemaster. If AD&D is despised today, Rolemaster is simply forgotten. And yet I bought HARP, and reading it I sensed how it was standing on the shoulders of a real giant. I'd love to try RM out... fat chance for that in 2007...

Quote from: MelanI believe Trampier, DCS and Otus to be better artists in the classical sense, for instance, than I do Todd Lockwood.

What do you mean by "in the classical sense"? I think if you showed examples of any of the artists to art historians and/or critics, Lockwood is the most technically proficient, by far. Tramp isn't far behind, and Erol Otus, much as I love him, would be a distant third. DCS...nostalgia value aside, I think I could have done as well as him in many cases, and I know I'm not anywhere near being a classically good artist. DCS's stuff was about the level of fan art. That's not a knock on him, really; he helped define much of the look of early D&D, and was there for them when few others were. But had TSR had the dough to afford the talents of, say, a Frank Frazetta or Richard Corben, both of whom Lockwood's work is reminiscent of, I doubt we'd ever have seen the work of DCS or many of the others.

Quote from: MelanInterestingly enough, I agree: all RPGs should be judged on their own merits, and not historical significance or that persistent bugbear, nostalgia. On the other hand, I disagree that "advances in the art of roleplaying" have rendered AD&D outdated - I don't agree with the view that RPGs have "advanced". Maybe in production values, but that's not a given either... I believe Trampier, DCS and Otus to be better artists in the classical sense, for instance, than I do Todd Lockwood.

I don't think it is an issue of whether games have "advanced" or not.  I think the issue is that tastes have changed a bit since AD&D was first produced.  I have a great sense of nostalgia for D&D/AD&D and frequently yearn for a classic, "old-school" style of gaming, but I can't imagine actually playing AD&D.  Not because there are better, more "advanced" systems these days (though, you might argue there are), but because I've changed.  And my gaming preferences have too.

I dare say I'm not alone.

I find it interesting that a number of Lev's reviews of old D&D material rate it as "Don't waste your money".  And yet, Lev obviously wasted his money.  I guess his preferences have changed over time, too.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhat do you mean by "in the classical sense"? I think if you showed examples of any of the artists to art historians

You rang?

When it comes to art, technical proficiency means nothing. Seriously. This is modernity. The Renaissance is over. Any old hack can draw a Conan.

Otus is an acquired taste, though. When it comes to fantasy art, I fall for kitsch. Like Michael Komarck.

Non-sexist Elven females--

http://www.komarckart.com/ccg_wl08.html

No art historical claims... it just works very well in game.

Quote from: MelanO the other hand, I disagree that "advances in the art of roleplaying" have rendered AD&D outdated - I don't agree with the view that RPGs have "advanced".

Would you feel better if it was stated more like this: "AD&D is no longer consistant with the expectations of today's RPG consumer"?

Quote from: MelanMaybe in production values, but that's not a given either...

No, it's a given.

Quote from: MelanI believe Trampier, DCS and Otus to be better artists in the classical sense, for instance, than I do Todd Lockwood.

Oh, sure. But art is just a part of product's production value.

Seanchai

QuoteWould you feel better if it was stated more like this: "AD&D is no longer consistant with the expectations of today's RPG consumer"?

I could agree on that.

What I wouldn't agree with though, is if you suggested this has anytihng to do with Lev's views.

Lev's views have more to do with "RQ GOOD, D&D BAD", and well predate "modern considerations".

It's just one in a billion examples of one man trying to employ the rhetorical trick of suggesting that hsi tastes are an objective, rather than subjective, principle.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityVery important point. What some people don't understand is that AD&D actually works. Minor revisions aside, it doesn't need special pleading.

But scrub boards still work. People buy washing machines, however. Hand drills still work. Slide rules still work. Fountain pens still work. There's a host of things that still work but aren't used anymore because people's preferences have changed. Just pointing out that AD&D can still be played doesn't change the course of the debate...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWould you feel better if it was stated more like this: "AD&D is no longer consistant with the expectations of today's RPG consumer"?

Ummm...nope.

There seem to be as many people into soemthing like OSRIC as something like Sorcerer.  It would be interesting to see the numbers.

So are those people interested in OSRIC not today's RPG consumer?

This, IMHO, smacks of elitism.  The assumption underlying this kind of statement is that someone who likes games made after 2000, or based on GNS, or less combat focused, or insert-your-criteria-here are "today's RPG consumer" and everyone else who likes AD&D or OSRIC or "old-school" is not "today's consumer."

That's just bullshit.

And if you take that assumption away, and include all those people that like OSRIC as much as people who like MLwM, then what does that tell you about "today's RPG consumer" beyond "Wow, look at all the choice we have now!"

And, taking away that assumption calls into question a subjective critique that says AD&D doesn't live up to "today's standards." Who's standard's - the people who like OSRIC or the people who like DitV?

That's why you have to base your review on whether or not it achieved it's goals - and let the reader determine if those goals are in line with his. At the very least, separate the subjective assesments from the objective ones.

Quote from: James J SkachThere seem to be as many people into soemthing like OSRIC as something like Sorcerer. It would be interesting to see the numbers.

Yeah, because "seems to be" is meaningless.

Quote from: James J SkachSo are those people interested in OSRIC not today's RPG consumer?

Sure. They just don't form the majority.

Quote from: James J SkachThis, IMHO, smacks of elitism.

Are you saying this because it's elitist or because you think you can score points by playing the elitism card? Because, somehow, I don't think you'd be crying, "Elitist!" if I said, "Consumer tastes have changed and so people purchase washing machines instead of scrub boards to do their laundry."

Quote from: James J SkachThe assumption underlying this kind of statement is that someone who likes games made after 2000, or based on GNS, or less combat focused, or insert-your-criteria-here are "today's RPG consumer" and everyone else who likes AD&D or OSRIC or "old-school" is not "today's consumer."

No, that's your assumption.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd, taking away that assumption calls into question a subjective critique that says AD&D doesn't live up to "today's standards." Who's standard's - the people who like OSRIC or the people who like DitV?

The collective's standards.

Seanchai