Does RPG rules get better with time ?

[silva]

I was looking into an old edition of D&D the other day and the rules seemed archaic as hell. But then I remembered that games like Shadowrun and Gurps are still a thing nowadays, so perhaps my perception that those games are archaic is just a particular perception without any objective value.

What do you guys and gals think ? Is it possible to say that rules have evolved for the better with the passing of years ? If so, why ?

OBS: I believe that layout and organization did actually improve, though. I think no one here will argue about that, right ?

[Longes]

I was looking into an old edition of D&D the other day and the rules seemed archaic as hell. But then I remembered that games like Shadowrun and Gurps are still a thing nowadays, so perhaps my perception that those games are archaic is just a particular perception without any objective value.

"Old" editions of D&D (read AD&D2.5) came out in 1995. Shadowrun 4 came out in 2005. There is a ten year gap between them. Of course the rules fucking evolved and changed. People houseruled the shit they didn't like, and then brought those houserules into new editions.

[silva]

But are those house-rules objectively better than the original ones ?

Thats my point. Can we say rules evolve in a objective way like a piece of tech ? The new Ferrari is a better automobile than a 20 years old Ferrari. Can we say the same for a RPG edition or game ?

[Longes]

On case by case basis. D&D3.5 is an improvement. Shadowrun 5 is a regression. Exalted 2e and 3e are stagnating.

[silva]

What criteria do you utilize to say that X is an improvement or a regression over Y or Z ?

[Lokathor]

Define what it means for a game of pretend to get "objectively" better.

[silva]

Define what it means for a game of pretend to get "objectively" better.

With that I mean to say that a be game is as better as an old game as a piece of tech is better than an old piece of the same tech. Like, if we compare a 14th century personal weapon like a sword, with a 20th century personal weapon like a submachine gun, we will conclude that the newer one reach its design goals (in this case, inflict damage on a personal conflict) better than the old one. This pattern will hold itself for the vast majority of cases, in regard to technology.

Does this pattern applies to RPG rules ? Will the newest RPGs have better rules than older RPGs ?

[Aryxbez]

so perhaps my perception that those games are archaic is just a particular perception without any objective value.

Moreso we have such outdated rules to this day because this industry is still a bit behind in the times itself. For instance, one of the most famous RPG's currently is an inferior houseruled 14-15yr old product (yes, Pathfinder). Since I said "industry", yes that's especially true of the main companies, where Catalyst full of the retro forcing in inferior rulesets, Wizards only hiring within a local pool of their city, and of course all these big companies are forced under poor management of one boss.

Does this pattern applies to RPG rules ? Will the newest RPGs have better rules than older RPGs ?

If you exist in a vacuum, then sure. Otherwise it depends on the merits of the game itself, and the talent behind it. As I said above about the stagnating hobby, the talent itself are old leftover who don't seem to know what they're doing. Kinda like what happened to companies like Capcom or the FF team, after the names that made them famous left. So nowadays, a sequel to a pre-existing game will seemingly only seek to be an inferior product to its predecessor's, and that's just sad.

However, a NEW game, not under those big companies, is very well possible, but only if they stick to more modern designs that fulfill the games design intents, and not seek to repeat history of these above companies.

[Red_Rob]

In abstract, yes RPG rules should get "better" (more likely to create the results the author intends, quicker to use in play, less unintended side effects) over time, simply due to iteration and people seeing what works and what doesn't. Over time people realise what rules are more conducive to a fun game experience and what initially seems fun but in practice slows things down or leads to unfun gaemplay.

Of course, it isn't a direct correlation over time. People try new things, fads emerge and individual tastes vary. But overall I think rules design has definitely improved over the years.

[tussock]

RPGs are new. In 1974 the rules were basically incomprehensible even to people with years of related wargaming rules under their belts. By 1984 nerdy ten year olds could self-teach.

By 1994 we had Ultima Online that your mum could play, and by 2004 World of Warcraft that your grandmother totally still plays. In 2014 we've got stuff like DotA2 where the entire experience is boiled down to 45-minute rounds with hundreds of basic replay options, thousands of builds for each, and difficulty grades where a 5-year-old can manage to find her favourite hero (which is Axe).

RPGs are definitely better. The experience is vastly more accessible, quicker, easier to find people to play with, cheaper, and enjoyed by huge numbers of people in comparison.


For some reason, likely blind nostalgia, people are also still turning out shitty clones of the 1984 stuff, only with most of the rules that made it a challenging social-puzzle-box experience all removed for the sake of ... "fun". Which, really, if you want to have fun, go play some Smash Bros, you're totally missing out.

[rasmuswagner]

Take 3rd edition D&D vs. 2nd, for example. The game moved away from many small fights and treasure focus in favor of fights taking up a greater amount of playtime. That's a deliberate design decision and a matter of taste.

It moved away from the minutiae of logistics, with food, water, light and shelter becoming low-level spells. A level 6 party these days can seriously just load up their armor, spellbooks and magic items and go on an expedition with no concern for supplies. Again, a design decision for a different playstyle, and an improvement for 99% of groups.

It moved HP from a "daily resource" to a "per encounter resource". This was probably unintenional.

The central die-rolling engine of the game was objectively improved. Roll+modifier to equal or exceed target number, bigger numbers are always better, is obviously better than Thac0 bullshit and ability check and NWPs with a negative modifier. Having grappling rules is way better than writing a new, inconsistent set of grapple rules with every grapple monster.

Killing Exceptional Strength was another great improvement.

GURPS 4E is a consolidation of a decade's worth of houserules and new subsystems. As a GURPS system, it is indisputably better than previous editions. As a 21st century system, the skill lists and the incongruous advantage pricing is an embarrasment.

[hogarth]

Some games like DnD have noticeably improved over time, but on the other hand most of the changes to Champions/HERO have been cosmetic since 1981(since it started off with a pretty good system to begin with).

[Smeelbo]

RPGs are new. In 1974 the rules were basically incomprehensible even to people with years of related wargaming rules under their belts.

This.

The summer of '75 I read the 3 OD&D books from cover to cover literally over a dozen times, and I still had no idea how to play. We fumbled around for a while, but quickly discovered the Warlock rules developed and distributed on the Arpanet by students from CalTech and MIT. These were a much needed improvement, especially regarding the caster/fighter disparity, so much so that I did not play any "official" D&D until 3.5.

D20 + bonus vs. DC is a huge advance over what came before, and still represents the minimum a game mechanic ought to provide. Dice pools are mostly superior to most other mechanics as well. Both are "recent" innovations.

Smeelbo