Quote from: The Ent;845956Sort of, I kinda concede the point, but 5e uses the 3e stuff in a very different way from 3e...anyway could've been so much worse, could've borrowed from 4e instead...but then, even 3e > 4e by a lot.

Well for those of us who played 4e there are plenty of unmistakable traces of it present, but what you don't know won't hurt your opinion.

Quote from: TetsuboThis: 'But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric', I don't get. How can a set of rules have 'atmosphere'? Some of the setting material from the AD&D era is great. I still have some of it. But I wouldn't ever use the rules again.

Quote from: soltakssI don't know, but that's how I felt. It was a long time ago, so I can't really remember why.

We carried on playing AD&D for a year or so, after we say 3E and did not use 3E at all.

I don't mean this as dismissively as it's going to sound, but perhaps rather than an objective sense of atmosphere what you really had was a sense of comfort, momentum and/or nostalgia?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;845980Well for those of us who played 4e there are plenty of unmistakable traces of it present, but what you don't know won't hurt your opinion.

...probably

Like with the 3e-derived stuff, I can kinda see it, but it doesn't bother me

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.  Simply for two reasons, the first is the obvious, it might be done by 'new guys' but the core idea is the same, they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

The core idea the same? I don't think so. I play OD&D, AD&D, and B/X when I want to simply play a fantasy game of exploration.

I play 3.X when overcome by the need to masturbate over how many bonuses I have and what my character can accomplish mechanically, which is seldom these days. Perhaps I'm just getting old, or maybe I grew up, not sure which.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939We've had thirty some years of experience now, some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical.  Yes, some people like the old systems, and there's nothing wrong with that, but other people want something more, something that fits how they've changed.  Every new edition IS an evolution.  It's not perfect, it's not 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.

If every new edition is an evolution then logically after 4E we would be WAY off from what we recognize as D&D by now, but somehow that didn't happen. The fans spoke up and D&D "evolved" back toward the direction of AD&D. It didn't get anywhere close to it, but the path certainly deviated from its projected target going from 2E to 3E to 4E.

D&D has an identity. It comes with certain things that some people don't care for but that without, starts to lose that identity. WOTC discovered that trying to evolve D&D into a completely different animal leads to an evolutionary dead end.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.

Go ahead and take exception. I don't care. It just shows that you are one more in a long line of ignorant young whippersnapper who don't understand what evolution is, but wants to use a four syllable, brainy sounding word to justify your liking something new and shiny.

QuoteAnd secondly, Evolution is not some clean process, mother nature teaches us that.

"mother nature teaches"...that is just too, too precious.

Quote from: Bren;846015"mother nature teaches"...that is just too, too precious.

Ah, bless, don't they sound cute, sometimes?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.  Simply for two reasons, the first is the obvious, it might be done by 'new guys' but the core idea is the same, they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game.

If it was really "evolution," no designers would be involved. Instead, each edition of D&D (or any game) is an example of "special creation" as a designer or designers select what will or will not be included and write it as their personal/committee vision.  Games don't "evolve" they are designed.

Quote from: Bren;846015Go ahead and take exception. I don't care. It just shows that you are one more in a long line of ignorant young whippersnapper who don't understand what evolution is, but wants to use a four syllable, brainy sounding word to justify your liking something new and shiny.

Yes, yes, yes, dismissing other people's opinions without considering them is oh so smart.

Whatever, not here to change anyone's opinion.  I have better things to do that get mad at the internet.

Quote from: Bren;846015"mother nature teaches"...that is just too, too precious.

Oh to be young and ignorant again, I miss those days.  Have you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is?  Or am I talking to a 'creationist'?

Quote from: RandallS;846037If it was really "evolution," no designers would be involved. Instead, each edition of D&D (or any game) is an example of "special creation" as a designer or designers select what will or will not be included and write it as their personal/committee vision.  Games don't "evolve" they are designed.

Assuming you're not actually being pedantic, what you're saying that unless it's done by a natural process and not by human hands, nothing has actually 'evolved'?

That's not what English says

Quoteev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions

    1.
    the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
    synonyms:   Darwinism, natural selection
    "his interest in evolution"
    2.
    the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
    "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
    synonyms:   development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding;

Definition 2 sounds exactly like what D&D has done over the last 40+ years.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846040Definition 2 sounds exactly like what D&D has done over the last 40+ years.

You've clearly been using "evolution" to refer to the biological process (even that ludicrous "mother nature" comment), and then you trot out a non-technical dictionary definition as "proof"?

Even accepting the loose analogy (RandallS is absolutely correct that the term does not strictly apply to game design), you clearly have no idea how evolution actually works. Evolution is not a process of improvement over time. It's a process of adaptation to specific environments. The idea that liveforms evolve from primitive organisms to more advanced organisms was the superimposition of the invisible hand of God on the process, in an attempt to make it more palatable to god-fearing Victorians. So you're not only more than a century out of date, you're actually using a Creationist argument.

You analogy worked fairly well when you said "they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game" -- which acknowledges a change, in response to a change in the environment. But arguing that old stuff is "clunky and frankly nonsensical" and new stuff is superior because of "evolution" is ascientific garbage.

Quote from: Pat;846055You've clearly been using "evolution" to refer to the biological process (even that ludicrous "mother nature" comment), and then you trot out a non-technical dictionary definition as "proof"?

Even accepting the loose analogy (RandallS is absolutely correct that the term does not strictly apply to game design), you clearly have no idea how evolution actually works. Evolution is not a process of improvement over time. It's a process of adaptation to specific environments. The idea that liveforms evolve from primitive organisms to more advanced organisms was the superimposition of the invisible hand of God on the process, in an attempt to make it more palatable to god-fearing Victorians. So you're not only more than a century out of date, you're actually using a Creationist argument.

You analogy worked fairly well when you said "they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game" -- which acknowledges a change, in response to a change in the environment. But arguing that old stuff is "clunky and frankly nonsensical" and new stuff is superior because of "evolution" is ascientific garbage.

Becareful because he fucking loves science.

Rant forthcoming

Its a game! Its not science, its not nature! Different games provide different experiences! Monopoly isnt an evolution of chess! Settlers of Caatan's existence doesnt invalidate the fun of playing Risk!

AD&D provided a certain gaming experience. That's not the same experience provided by 3e, 4th ed, or 5th. They are all different games! They do different things, they support different tastes. Just because some later edition came along and provided something more to a specific person's taste in what they want from an RPG to support thier individual playstyle, it oesn't mean that game is "superior"  from any PoV that isnt self-absorbed and placing one's own playstyle on some ridiculous pedestal. Some people prefer the gaming experience provided by earlier editions. If you want to judge everything by the standards of how OD&D was meant to be played, every edition since has been continuously failing more miserably! But instead you have people who are getting arrogantly dismissive of Gygaxian D&D for not being Mearls D&D.

And then trying to back up this asinine lack of self awareness with inept pseudo-scientific metaphors? Hyperbole much?

I dont like AD&D. I dont like classes, I think alignments are stupid, I think the magic system is un-evocative and arbitrary, and I find the Star Trek-approach to monsters bleeds everything interesting, unique, and resonant from folklore and mythology out of them into some Terry Brooksish Milquetoast. I think levels and XP are way too gamey, the whole conceit of a "dungeon" destroys any of my suspension of disbelief, and it annoys me that the stat ratings have no real world equivalents.

I could name over a hundred RPGs Id rather play than AD&D.

And NONE of that means its a bad game. Because I'm able to recognize the difference between subjective personal preferences and objective facts, a capacity that seems to be rarer online than unbiased journalism.

The purpose of a game is to have fun. If AD&D provides that for someone, then the game has 100% succeeded, no qualifiers necessary. If it doesnt, theres tons of other games to chose from. But when I dont have fun playing Poker, but I have fun playing Hearts, I dont think to myself "Oh Hearts is a frikkin evolution of poker. Hell, why does anyone play with suit cards anymore at all anymore now that Magic: the god-damn Gathering exists? Derpa Derpa Doo Evolution!"

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846040Yes, yes, yes, dismissing other people's opinions without considering them is oh so smart.

Dismissing idiocy is time efficient. Fortunately others responded point by point to your comments.

QuoteOh to be young and ignorant again, I miss those days.

1. I'm older than most people on this forum. Gronan and Chirine are the only two I know are older than me.

2. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were young, but have it your way. You are old and ignorant.

QuoteHave you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is?

It's obvious that you at most took a look. I'm not particularly interested in figuring out which flavor of ignorant you are.

Quote from: Pat;846055You analogy worked fairly well when you said "they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game" -- which acknowledges a change, in response to a change in the environment. But arguing that old stuff is "clunky and frankly nonsensical" and new stuff is superior because of "evolution" is ascientific garbage.

I'll just +1 all of your post.

Quote from: TristramEvans;846073Its a game! Its not science, its not nature! Different games provide different experiences! Monopoly isnt an evolution of chess! Settlers of Caatan's existence doesnt invalidate the fun of playing Risk!

+1 to your whole frickin rant as well.

QuoteAnd then trying to back up this asinine lack of self awareness with inept pseudo-scientific metaphors?

And this was just too good not to repeat.

Quote from: Ulairi;846056Becareful because he fucking loves science.

I love good wine. That doesn't make me a wine maker.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846040Yes, yes, yes, dismissing other people's opinions without considering them is oh so smart.

Dismissing idiocy is time efficient. Fortunately others responded point by point to your comments.

QuoteOh to be young and ignorant again, I miss those days.

1. I'm older than most people on this forum. Gronan and Chirine are the only two I know are older than me.

2. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were young, but have it your way. You are old and ignorant.

QuoteHave you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is?

It's obvious that at most you only took a brief look. Otherwise you couldn't be quite so clueless. You sound like a Victorian Social Darwinist or maybe a Scientologist, but frankly I'm not particularly interested in figuring out which exact flavor of wrong about evolution you happen to be.

Quote from: Pat;846055You analogy worked fairly well when you said "they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game" -- which acknowledges a change, in response to a change in the environment. But arguing that old stuff is "clunky and frankly nonsensical" and new stuff is superior because of "evolution" is ascientific garbage.

I'll just +1 all of your post. And thank you for taking the time to respond to Christopher's nonsense.

Quote from: TristramEvans;846073Its a game! Its not science, its not nature! Different games provide different experiences! Monopoly isnt an evolution of chess! Settlers of Caatan's existence doesnt invalidate the fun of playing Risk!

+1 to your whole frickin rant as well.

QuoteAnd then trying to back up this asinine lack of self awareness with inept pseudo-scientific metaphors?

And this was just too good not to repeat.

Quote from: Ulairi;846056Becareful because he fucking loves science.

I love good wine. That doesn't make me a wine maker.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.  Simply for two reasons, the first is the obvious, it might be done by 'new guys' but the core idea is the same, they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game.

We've had thirty some years of experience now, some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical.  Yes, some people like the old systems, and there's nothing wrong with that, but other people want something more, something that fits how they've changed.  Every new edition IS an evolution.  It's not perfect, it's not 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.

And secondly, Evolution is not some clean process, mother nature teaches us that.  She sticks mutations on us and sees what happens, if the species survives!  Great, keep at it.  If not, oh well, not meant to be.  Seriously, it's a slapdash affair at the best of times, and it doesn't always remove bits that don't need to be there.  Like say, the human appendix.  That little organ has not been needed for millennia, and yet the little bugger is still there, causing humans problems from time to time.

"What I like is RIGHT!  And what you like is WRONG!"

If D&D has undergone an evolution, then 3rd edition was was a shark turning into a lump of festering shit.

Give it up, dude. Different games are different, not better.  I think 3E sucks so hard the skin comes off my dick; it is a prime example of everything wrong with game design, from "a rule for every fucking ridiculous thing no matter how trivial" to Skip Williams' stated goal to "protect players from the whims of arbitrary game masters."

Oh, look, Christopher Brady just evolved into the newest member of my Tongue My Pee Hole list!

Really, the last person to grind out that "My version is OBJECTIVELY better!" was that assmonkey Topher.

Quote from: TristramEvans;846073Rant

"+1" doesn't quite articulate the degree of agreement at work here. If I were a billionare I'd build a huge frickin' laser cannon, put it in orbit and carve your rant on the fucking Himalayas.