The limits of evolution
Filed under Soapbox on March 21, 2008
Keywords: 4E, Dungeons and Dragons, games
The Chatty DM had an excellent post last week on how the lack of nostalgic elements won’t make 4E any less of a fun game. I totally agree. I like a lot of what I see in 4E and think I would enjoy playing it.
I’m just not really sure I can think of it as Dungeons & Dragons anymore. Like any game, there are core mechanics and gameplay features that separate Dungeons & Dragons from its competitors and clones. I’m not comfortable declaring definitively what those are, but I certainly have my opinion. And I don’t see much of what I identify as D&D in 4E. Gone is the alignment system and Vancian magic. No more rolling for hit points. About the only constant I can see across the editions is the concept of some core races and classes: cleric, fighter, wizard, dwarf, elf and halfling.
Is there a point where a game evolves so much it can no longer be considered the same game? Would you still call it Monopoly if you bought and sold property, but no longer had to travel around a board to do it? For those who believe in the theory of evolution, we all originated from the same organism, but we no longer share the same species name because of how far we’ve come. Can–and should–the same principle apply to roleplaying games?
March 26th, 2008 at 9:13 am
My friend Kameron posted on his blog about the limits of game evolution.
[edited by admin: clean up of URL]