Hallavast
2010-06-01, 04:12 AM
There seems to be an obvious divergence of style in the consideration of the Free-range vs. Dungeon Crawl paradigm. Correct me if I'm not PC, but the shift between the two poles has perhaps created a rift in philosophy.
It seems from assorted articles of experts and legends in the feild that the "old guard" of gaming used to be that of hardcore wargaming veterans. But whenever I see criticism of new millenia games from "old timers", it seems to come not from a sense of loyalty to the mechanics, but from nostalgic senses of comraderie and fun. Indeed, criticism is directed at the game getting in the way of gaming rather than any kind of conflict with the mechanical flow of said game. In other words, the focus of these old wargamers is not one of internal balance, but one of rules getting in the way of the game.
On the other hand, the new age generation of gamerati seem to seek a sleek, balanced, agile set of rules that conform to whatever style of play they're in the mood to play.
I, personally, am of two minds concerning this conflict. I am too young to be a member of the old guard ( I began my gaming career in 1999), but I don't exactly fit into the latter group either. This might be a false dichotomy, but I'd rather hear the opinions of the playground than my own doubt.
If you subscribe to this view of things, what has been your experience with this conflict? IF, as the experts say, the older generation has shown an affinity for wargaming over roleplaying (and by consequence has tried to subvert the game into such a preferential subset of play) then how is such a disdain for uniform and customizeable rules so prevalent in their rhetoric? Likewise, if "younger" gamers are so obsessed with neo-larping roleplay, then why is there such a struggle for game balance from that side of the table? Is there more to it than a simple dichotomy?
Edited for clarity.
It seems from assorted articles of experts and legends in the feild that the "old guard" of gaming used to be that of hardcore wargaming veterans. But whenever I see criticism of new millenia games from "old timers", it seems to come not from a sense of loyalty to the mechanics, but from nostalgic senses of comraderie and fun. Indeed, criticism is directed at the game getting in the way of gaming rather than any kind of conflict with the mechanical flow of said game. In other words, the focus of these old wargamers is not one of internal balance, but one of rules getting in the way of the game.
On the other hand, the new age generation of gamerati seem to seek a sleek, balanced, agile set of rules that conform to whatever style of play they're in the mood to play.
I, personally, am of two minds concerning this conflict. I am too young to be a member of the old guard ( I began my gaming career in 1999), but I don't exactly fit into the latter group either. This might be a false dichotomy, but I'd rather hear the opinions of the playground than my own doubt.
If you subscribe to this view of things, what has been your experience with this conflict? IF, as the experts say, the older generation has shown an affinity for wargaming over roleplaying (and by consequence has tried to subvert the game into such a preferential subset of play) then how is such a disdain for uniform and customizeable rules so prevalent in their rhetoric? Likewise, if "younger" gamers are so obsessed with neo-larping roleplay, then why is there such a struggle for game balance from that side of the table? Is there more to it than a simple dichotomy?
Edited for clarity.