T.S. Eliot once put forward the theory that a serious work of art changes the meaning of the tradition leading up to it. That is, when an artist creates an artwork, she does not only put out a new work with a new meaning of its own; that work also changes the significance of all the works that came before it, or at least some of them. So that a serious artwork is not just a virtuouso performance, but a literal transformation of the meaning of the history of art.

I actually don't believe that Eliot's theory is coherent when given a 'straight' reading, but there's a real phenomenon he's pointing to, and this is not a philosophy board, so let's skip the deep analysis. Some examples might be the following. Mozart's music was perceived as passionate and even 'wild' by Mozart's contemporaries, who thought about music in the horizon dictated by Haydn, Salieri, CPE Bach, and the other 'classical' performers. And relative to that space of artworks, perhaps it was. But when Beethoven's music came along that all changed. With romanticism a reality, Mozart became the supreme exemplar of disciplined, mannered 'classical' performance, as against the Romanticism that grows out of Beethoven and his contemporaries.

Another example is visible in Clement Greenberg's reinterpretation of the history of painting by way of the modernists. Everything after Leonardo looks different once you have Cezanne, Cubism, Mondrian, etc.; it was possible for Greenberg to reinterpret all that history as a move away from illusion and towards the formal possibilities of painting as a specific medium. Some (e.g. Kosuth) argue that Duchamp and then the serious movements of the sixties and seventies provide yet another transformation of the history of art, including the great modernists, as being fundamentally concerned with how artworks illustrate the concept of art itself, which again, if true, would reassign significances.


OK. But enough on all that. What this thread is about is whether there are RPGs that seem somehow better because of new developments. That is, game x, produced in year y, seemed at year y to not have much going for it. But then when game z, produced in year w well after y, came out, suddenly you were able to see something in game x that you weren't able to see before, and it became a much more significant game in your mind.

I'm not just talking about rock-solid old designs here. My admiration for The Fantasy Trip and The James Bond 007 RPG have only grown over time, for instance, but those were obviously good games when they came out. What makes my appreciation grow in these cases is just how solid their basic elements are even while the games manage to 'do' something, and my ever-renewed understanding of how hard that is to do based on my own tinkering.

Here's my shot at an example. Mike Mearls was talking a while ago about looking at Rifts again, in the context of a discussion about what makes 3e a good system. Palladium Fantasy and Rifts struck me at the time and for many years afterwards as junk systems: the first a D&D ripoff, both needlessly baroque and wildly complex and geared for a consumer-driven, minimaxing, hard core gamist style that I rather abhorred.

However, just because of 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons, I have a new appreciation for both games. Why? Because 3e is a streamlined, mostly solid, and rather clever design that uses those same elements in a much more controlled and coherent way. But having played 3e and seen how the feat race, etc. works in the context of a game system that is put together much more clearly, I understand how the style of play that goes along with Palladium Fantasy and Rifts can be workable and even fun for groups that are looking for that kind of game. It's not my cup of tea; but suddenly I understand why games that seemed like abhorrently clunky bad AD&D clones were actually something more than this, and that TSR was actually playing catchup to Palladium when they hit the player's option stuff in the mid-late eighties. I didn't like that stuff either, but what I like doesn't matter here: the point is that that wasn't just 'bad', it was supporting a kind of play which can actually be taken to quite a high level, as 3e shows.

This, in turn, suggests that Palladium Fantasy and Rifts have a different significance in the history of RPGs than I would have been inclined to give them. But this only really became apparent to me after 3e was released. It wasn't that I didn't understand the play-style these games encouraged, because I did: I just didn't see why anyone would want to go there until I saw a more functional use of a similar approach.

Now, to some degree, this may just be a confession of my ignorance of the possibilities that were already there in those systems. But possibilities can take on greater significance when they're actualized in more functional ways, which is part of my point.

So - any takers? Leaving aside whether it's just a confession of our subjective limitations or a genuine transformation of the significance of various RPGs, what are some cases where new games have completely altered your appreciation or estimation of older ones?

both needlessly baroque and wildly complex and geared for a consumer-driven, minimaxing, hard core gamist style that I rather abhorred.

I wonder if anyone would have that reaction to Amber after reading Nobilis?

Having read HeroQuest, I am better able to judge the game of RuneQuest I played in, but I don't know if that's the sort of thing that counts. My GM was very much close to the chest about the world's background, and at least now I know *why* my character's head got shriveled by a Walktipus....

Hi there -

Well, I guess this isn't going very far.

Noon, the way I see it, your descriptions actually confirm my point, according to the perverse criteria I've set for this thread. In terms of old threads of mine here, though, this one definitely relates more to

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8910

than to 'Grognard Speaks'.

Amber I think was recognized as a breakthrough game at the time, and actually still has a rather large following, as RPG followings go. Of course so does Palladium/Rifts. But I think that Amber was recognized as an artistic/conceptual breakthrough by many from the get-go, so I'm not sure it would count. I did have that thought myself though.

The Heroquest idea is interesting though. I appreciated Glorantha all along, but I can see how certain Gloranthan themes/tropes might have become apparent for the first time with a set of mechanics that really emphasized community. On the subjective side, then, that's a good example. But again, like Amber, there have always been 'highbrow' RPG Gloranthaphiles. And it's a setting, not a system; but it is interesting how system can help you 'get' setting.

Hello,

My hope is that Sorcerer has led some folks to a greater appreciation of Prince Valiant, Zero, and Over the Edge. The latter game might not need any help from Sorcerer, I realize.

I certainly hope that Scarlet Wake leads to a better appreciation of Extreme Vengeance. All games which rely on a shared understanding of what scenarios, scenes, and conflicts are (Universalis, Trollbabe, Dogs in the Vineyard, e.g.) owe an immense nod to this game.

Best,
Ron

Sean wrote: Hi there -

Well, I guess this isn't going very far.

Noon, the way I see it, your descriptions actually confirm my point, according to the perverse criteria I've set for this thread. In terms of old threads of mine here, though, this one definitely relates more to

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8910

than to 'Grognard Speaks'.
*snip*

I understand how the style of play that goes along with Palladium Fantasy and Rifts can be workable and even fun for groups that are looking for that kind of game.