TheRPGSite

So, I'm splitting off a discussion of game design from "The Error of Game Design Priorities" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3242&page=1) to talk about the basis for design.  

Quote from: RPGPunditThat "small set" is certainly much less small than, say, "Forge games which have been as successful".  That one would be a set of ZERO.

So I will take our experience over your theories which have never proven any success, any day.

Well, as I see it, you don't have to choose one or the other of experience or theory.  I'm in favor of keeping the successful games in print.  I have no desire to see D&D cancelled.  The same goes for Vampire, GURPS, the HERO System, and so forth.  If people buy them, keep selling them.  

The question is, though, what should new games be like?  

I'm of the radical opinion that new games should do something new.  This has jack-all to do with following any particular theory.  I dislike GNS as a theory, and I'd be happy with a new game design that runs counter to it.  However, whatever it is, a new game should try to do something different than what has gone before.  



Now, this is risky.  By definition, if something is new, then it isn't a proven success.  And indeed, more than 99% of new games aren't going to be successful.  However, that is how the current successful games came about.  In 1975, there was no established wisdom that fantasy games about exploring dungeons were a good model.  Yet D&D was a success.  Similarly, in 1990, there were no successful games where the PCs were evil monsters.  It ran counter to all the heroic traditions of games.  Yet Vampire: The Masquerade was vastly more successful than all the D&D clones of before and after it put together.  

So, for example, one could say that the only successful game at bringing in kids is the red box Basic D&D.  That's true enough -- but so what?  Basic D&D has already been done.  If you think that's the only good model, then just lobby to keep that game in print.  I would approve of that.  But if you want to talk about doing a new game for kids, then it should do something new.  Maybe a different setting, maybe different mechanics, maybe diceless, maybe card-using, whatever.  

Contrary to you, I have no problem whatsoever with theories.  Theories are good -- they lead to new designs.  Multiple theories should be put out, and all of them tested.  The problem is dogma.  If someone follows a set of principles regardless of what their playtesting and experimenting shows, then design suffers.  This is equally true of revolutionary dogma and conservative dogma.

I'm presented with new things every time I run a game. My players are endlessly inventive, and continually catch me flat footed. I don't need new game designs to have new games. :D

-clash

Quote from: jhkimI'm of the radical opinion that new games should do something new.

Well, at least someone out there agrees with me.

The problem isn't that we want new games to be new. The problem arises in what aspect of the game the newness applies to.

It's how we end up with fifty settings all using d20 all claiming to be "new" games. Nothing's wrong with d20, but new setting doesn't equal new game for me.

I'm still trying to pin down what I feel contributes to the newness of a game. I'm in that crappy position of "know it when I see it" but I can't define it yet. It's not just system mechanics, it's not just setting, and it's not necessarily interaction, since that's highly group-dependent.

Gah. If I figure it out any time soon, I'll let y'all know.

Quote from: flyingmiceI'm presented with new things every time I run a game. My players are endlessly inventive, and continually catch me flat footed. I don't need new game designs to have new games. :D

And great.  If all publishing of new RPG books were to stop today, then people could continue to do new things with the books they have.  

However, if you're going to publish a new RPG book, then I think you should at least try to do something new.  For example, I am interested with In Harm's Way because it is treating a subject which hasn't been done -- or at least not since 1983 with Jon Williams' Privateers & Gentlemen.  So it's something fairly new.  

Certainly I wouldn't slam it by the logic of "No Napoleonic naval RPG has ever been successful" -- because that's clearly false logic.  Is it going to be the next big thing?  Probably not, but I still approve of trying it.

Also, while I am for making new things available, does that also mean you have to restrict what was already there?

That's the thing about broad vs. focused games. Doing what a successful game does minus something isn't offering anything new. Doing what a successful game does plus something does add something new. Therefore, the trend should lean towards broader and broader games, not narrower and narrower.

Well, I can at least appreciate the fact that you've seperated theory from dogma. Most existing RPG theories are indeed actually dogma.

As far as new games, I'm all for em'. I disagree that they have to "do something new", though. They probably just have to do something interesting in a fun way. It *could* be something new, but I'd even go for some genre or approach we just haven't thought about yet-- or an amazing setting.  

The real success of Gen Con this year as far as I'm concerned was Faery's Tale. But even then, this is a game you could play with kids, but definitely not a game kids would really care about playing with each other.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, if you're going to publish a new RPG book, then I think you should at least try to do something new.  For example, I am interested with In Harm's Way because it is treating a subject which hasn't been done -- or at least not since 1983 with Jon Williams' Privateers & Gentlemen.  So it's something fairly new.

But this doesn't contradict Pundit's point, or advance your claim that one doesn't have to choose between experience and theory.

I don't want to play down the innovation in Clash's game (I haven't even seen it) but there's a big difference between using the same basic design premises to address a new subject, on the one hand, and developing premises and paradigms which are entirely new.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut this doesn't contradict Pundit's point, or advance your claim that one doesn't have to choose between experience and theory.

I don't want to play down the innovation in Clash's game (I haven't even seen it) but there's a big difference between using the same basic design premises to address a new subject, on the one hand, and developing premises and paradigms which are entirely new.

There isn't any innovation in my games - I'm not an innovator. I leave that to those with the talent to pull it off. I just pulled things from a bunch of different sources and made them work together. The bggest difference between Privateers and Gentlemen and In Harm's Way is emphasis - Williams designed an awesome simulation of Napoleonic Naval warfare. I designed an emulation of Napoleonic Naval fiction. Otherwise, the differences are far less important than the similarities.

-clash

I agree that if you're going to make new games (as in publishing) it's worth actually offering something new.  That could be a new setting, or a new game mechanic, or even an entirely new kind of game.  It might just be a new way of looking at an existing game / setting / etc.

There's also no reason to abandon classic games, whether that's Go, Chess, B/X D&D, or something else.

I'm working on an RPG type game that has strong competitive gameplay elements, but doesn't abandon the traditional GM / Players split.  There aren't many game like this, and no games using the same approach I'm using.  It's not possible to rely exclusively on experience -- so I need to look at experience with a lot of different games, plus some theory where it makes sense.

Unfortunately a lot of the theory has been rubbish... but some of the discussions about why it's rubbish has actually been helpful.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAs far as new games, I'm all for em'. I disagree that they have to "do something new", though. They probably just have to do something interesting in a fun way. It *could* be something new, but I'd even go for some genre or approach we just haven't thought about yet-- or an amazing setting.

The real success of Gen Con this year as far as I'm concerned was Faery's Tale. But even then, this is a game you could play with kids, but definitely not a game kids would really care about playing with each other.

Well, if you go for a genre or approach which hasn't been thought about yet, that's something new.  Right?  My rant here is against the idea of criticizing new ideas in games because they're new and they haven't been proved successful.  You can use this logic against any game which does anything new -- but that's an empty claim.  

I concur about Faery's Tale, by the way.  It's the one game I got at GenCon 2006 which I've run since then.

Well, you need a unique selling point. That can be 'New and Improved', 'Just Like Mother Used To Make', 'Great Art!', 'Material You Can Use Rather Than Read', 'From The Creator Of X', 'High Quality' or whatever.

Quote from: jhkimI'm of the radical opinion that new games should do something new.  This has jack-all to do with following any particular theory.  I dislike GNS as a theory, and I'd be happy with a new game design that runs counter to it.  However, whatever it is, a new game should try to do something different than what has gone before.  

I agree with this. Something new. I think this is important because I see how something new - even though it may not be actualy new has infleuenced my own gaming group. Perhaps, something different is a more accurate term.

I think there is a great benefit to exposing groups to different types of games. Those games /systems may not be particularly innovative but they could be to that particular game group.

For instance In Harms Way may not according to Clash be innovative, but it was to my group. This game really changed the way how they see rpgs in the sense of actually playing them. It has also allowed me to try other games which they would not not normally be interested in.

A bit off topic, but yeah I do think that new games should be created and if possible with new ideas. I don't think that this could ever be considered a bad thing.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jhkimAnd great.  If all publishing of new RPG books were to stop today, then people could continue to do new things with the books they have.  

However, if you're going to publish a new RPG book, then I think you should at least try to do something new.  For example, I am interested with In Harm's Way because it is treating a subject which hasn't been done -- or at least not since 1983 with Jon Williams' Privateers & Gentlemen.  So it's something fairly new.  

But a game like In Harm's Way, and COUNTLESS other new games, demonstrate that you can be "New" without throwing away or rejecting the conventions that make RPGs recognizeable as RPGs.
Your argument seems to imply that if we don't all start designing Forge games, then all we're left with is somehow going to be D&D clones, or that my position leaves no room for innovation. That's nonsense.   There's practically an infinite range of innovation within the boundaries of what is definably recognizeable as an RPG.  There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and while not all new games that fall within those conventions will be successful (odds are, in fact, that most of them won't be), nothing that rejects conventions of RPGs has thus far managed to become a runaway success.
Your argument is one that creates the false logic that "if we don't make games that reject everything that is currently defined as an RPG, then we're doomed to stagnation", and that's frankly nonsense.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditnothing that rejects conventions of RPGs has thus far managed to become a runaway success.

How to Host a Murder.

QuoteI'm of the radical opinion that new games should do something new.

Okay.
Settle for the big one.
This is the penultimate post I will ever make, and it will crush many a dream:

Nobody needs new games.

Quote from: SettembriniNobody needs new games.

Nobody needs games.

Gosh, this is fun.  Can we say more things that miss the point now?

I want a pony.

I agree with your post; nothing wrong with new.

I will say a few things that miss your point (in honor of Levi's post) but are relevant because they're often part of related conversations:

1) I'm skeptical of innovation for innovation's sake
2) I'm irritated by claims (that you aren't, and haven't made, but others have) that the existing, traditional model is broken
3) Terminology that uses the "r word" (revolution) or war metaphors (this includes the Pundit) turns me off -- we're all doing what we can, you know? (again -- this misses you're point; you're not carrying pictures of the Chairman)

But I do want to pick something up from your post that I think is worth discussing (even if it's not framed in terms of agreement or disagreement):

Quote from: jhkimSo, for example, one could say that the only successful game at bringing in kids is the red box Basic D&D.  That's true enough -- but so what?  Basic D&D has already been done.  If you think that's the only good model, then just lobby to keep that game in print.  I would approve of that.  But if you want to talk about doing a new game for kids, then it should do something new.  Maybe a different setting, maybe different mechanics, maybe diceless, maybe card-using, whatever.

I bolded the part about the model.

The model's what interests me -- and it's the part I'm the most-interrested in seeing innovation around and the least-interested in most of the actual innovation.

I see virtually all RPG's as following, essentially, the highly-successful D&D model (the "traditional gaming model"). Games that deviate from it are often categorically less interesting to me.

There's certainly room for infinite diversity *within* the model (mice's IHW, which I watched an on-line game of the other night, and was intrigued).

I suspect that it's very hard to come up with significant improvements on the model -- a new model would probably look like something other than an RPG... and it wouldn't replace the (existing, working) model... but it would sort of be an investigation into other kinds of social structured interaction around some of the themes of rpg's.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SettembriniOkay.
Settle for the big one.
This is the penultimate post I will ever make, and it will crush many a dream:

Nobody needs new games.

I actually agree. I have never seen a need to rush or felt a burning need for newness either. And you know, that does take the pressure off. Seperated from the value of newness as a virtue in itself-- when something amazing comes along for me, it tends to stand out (or disappear) by it's own virtue.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut a game like In Harm's Way, and COUNTLESS other new games, demonstrate that you can be "New" without throwing away or rejecting the conventions that make RPGs recognizeable as RPGs.
Your argument seems to imply that if we don't all start designing Forge games, then all we're left with is somehow going to be D&D clones, or that my position leaves no room for innovation.  

Actually, I explicitly said the opposite in my post -- that I don't give a shit about whether the innovation is at all similar or disimilar to the current spate of games from the Forge.  

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's practically an infinite range of innovation within the boundaries of what is definably recognizeable as an RPG.There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and while not all new games that fall within those conventions will be successful (odds are, in fact, that most of them won't be), nothing that rejects conventions of RPGs has thus far managed to become a runaway success.

You're right.  There's no need for new RPGs of any sort.  The existing RPGs are fine and there's nothing wrong with them.  However, the fact that something is different than what has been successful in the past is not an argument against it.  

For example, there has never been anything without magic or other fantasy elements which has thus far managed to become a runaway success -- let alone a straight Napoleonic game.  So therefore, one could argue that we should only stick to fantasy, horror, and sci-fi games -- because that is what has been successful in the past.  Advocates of F/SF can claim (quite rightly) "There's no need to throw out magic, because there's infinite range for innovation within F/SF!"  

The same complaints were made when Amber Diceless came out -- that there was no need to toss out dice, since there was infinite range for innovation using dice.  

The fact that there are different innovations possible isn't an argument against a game.

Quote from: RPGPunditYour argument is one that creates the false logic that "if we don't make games that reject everything that is currently defined as an RPG, then we're doomed to stagnation", and that's frankly nonsense.

I didn't read this into the statement. I think your interpretation is a natural thinking path, but not the only one.

Dead of Night is a perfectly traditional game brings quite a few new concepts to the gaming table. My primary goal was not to alienate traditional players with some way-out-there concept. Those traditional players are the bread-and-butter of the industry. All I did was ask for a 90-degree shift in their character design approach. Not too much of a leap, since it actually makes things easier for the players in the long run.

But there's nothing wrong with creating options for the newer developing styles of play, so I did that too.

Quote from: -E.There's certainly room for infinite diversity *within* the model (mice's IHW, which I watched an on-line game of the other night, and was intrigued).

Whoa! That was you -E? Rock! :D

-clash

Oh, one last insight:

There's traditional, and then there's D&D.

We can all acknowledge D&D is the biggest, right? But D&D is also weird and practically unique in the way it does what it does when compared to other RPGs. This is pointed out quite often. There are very few RPGs that still have such a robust tactical core-game, despite the fact that they rule the market. Why is that?

In fact, I can only really count Hero and Gurps off the top of my head. And maybe like.. Rolemaster, if it ever comes back in wide publication.

I don't count Savage Worlds- it has a veneer of tactical-ness, but it's just a veneer. Underneath it has a lot of seemingly touchy feely fuzzy stuff about what dice to assign to abilities and you can't really use your mastery of the SW rules to dominate encounters like you can with D&D, Gurps, and Hero. Heck, I don't even count True 20. I don't even count Rifts: Rifts is pretty much just a matter of comparing equipment and damage rolls. There's not much in the way of tactical movement or advantage-seeking tactical play going on.

SO there's traditional, and there's traditional.

Also, this is why I laugh so loud when someone says "Oh, well if gamers like D&D? then they'll obviously love TSOY. It has something  almost like feats!"

Aside from being a non-innovative designer, I maintain that innovation is necessary, and if I have to sift through a few fuggly games for these few gems of innovation buried in many games, I can deal. I've never yet seen a Forge game that I want to play, but there are some cool, truly innovative things that some of them do in amongst the other stuff I'm not interested in. To me, it's worth it that these games exist for this reason alone. Lord knows I'm not going to come up with anything on my own that hasn't been done before. Someone's got to do it! Besides that, there are a substantial minority of folks who love these games, and that's cool with me. It would be a boring world if everyone had the same opinion as me. It'd be like a campaign setting without conflict... :D

-clash

See, this thread shows the classic mistake of ending up defending conservatism against the new wave.

Its a crap arguement - advertising men have been selling new and improved for so long that you don't want to end up as the stodgy stick in the mud.

Far better to go on the offensive, talk about the forgite dogma that accepts only one way as the true way, stiffling inovation, just how derivative forge games are, the truely massive numbers of forge heartbreakers devoid of any inspiration of quality we are now seeing.

Yes, I know you want to be edgy, but you missed it. Just following the forge line is so 2002 man.

And Clash dude - Sell your products. New and improved straight historical roleplaying! Semi competitive play, mirroring the service! Will YOUR hero be the one to make it to admiral!

Quote from: Erik BoielleAnd Clash dude - Sell your products. New and improved straight historical roleplaying! Semi competitive play, mirroring the service! Will YOUR hero be the one to make it to admiral!

Well, I've long been aware that my games sell despite my efforts, not because of them... :P

-clash

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHow to Host a Murder.

That's closer to a LARP than an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimThe fact that there are different innovations possible isn't an argument against a game.

No, its not.  But it is an argument against the suggestion that in order to "move forward" we must actively reject and depose all existing conventions, and that this kind of change is something that would either be desirable or successful.

In particular, my thread was pointing out that the particular direction guided by the aphorism, which the Forge Crowd pulled out of their collective asses, that "the best most popular game will be the game where you have a single very narrow theme and a perfectly-tooled system that leaves no need or room for interpretation by any tyrannical DM" was one that ignored the plethora of possibilities offered by conventional RPGs, and these more open systems are more naturally appealing and tied to what players really want, in direct contradiction to Forge Dogma.

Given that your title seems to claim that this thread is a response to that, I think my statements here are relevant.

RPGPundit

Quote from: rumbleI didn't read this into the statement. I think your interpretation is a natural thinking path, but not the only one.

Dead of Night is a perfectly traditional game brings quite a few new concepts to the gaming table. My primary goal was not to alienate traditional players with some way-out-there concept. Those traditional players are the bread-and-butter of the industry. All I did was ask for a 90-degree shift in their character design approach. Not too much of a leap, since it actually makes things easier for the players in the long run.

But there's nothing wrong with creating options for the newer developing styles of play, so I did that too.

I'm still looking forward to receiving my review copy, btw. Don't know when you sent it, but it hasn't arrived.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's closer to a LARP than an RPG.

Yes, they are.

They are, regardless, clearly games - ones which require roleplaying.  They don't claim to be RPGs, nor do they fit your model of what an RPG is.  They are, however, a commercial success.

You asked for an example of something that discarded the model (while, one assumes, retaining a large chunk of the core activity) and succeeded commercially.  I gave you one.

So, who the fuck cares what they're "closer to"?

Quote from: Erik BoielleSee, this thread shows the classic mistake of ending up defending conservatism against the new wave.

Its a crap arguement - advertising men have been selling new and improved for so long that you don't want to end up as the stodgy stick in the mud.

Far better to go on the offensive, talk about the forgite dogma that accepts only one way as the true way, stiffling inovation, just how derivative forge games are, the truely massive numbers of forge heartbreakers devoid of any inspiration of quality we are now seeing.

Yes, I know you want to be edgy, but you missed it. Just following the forge line is so 2002 man.

And Clash dude - Sell your products. New and improved straight historical roleplaying! Semi competitive play, mirroring the service! Will YOUR hero be the one to make it to admiral!

Hey, I know you say all this just a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in fact, I really do think that Clash's style of games, and everything of the sort that BM games is doing (Hearts & Souls, etc) really is where the true future of small-press RPGs lies.   If a small-press RPG is going to suddenly turn into a runaway hit, it will be one of these, and not one of the Forge's offerings.

RPGPundit

Quote from: -E.I suspect that it's very hard to come up with significant improvements on the model -- a new model would probably look like something other than an RPG... and it wouldn't replace the (existing, working) model... but it would sort of be an investigation into other kinds of social structured interaction around some of the themes of rpg's.

Like Word of Warcraft... or HeroScape... or D&D Miniatures... or Descent...

In truth, RPGPundit / theRPGsite does promote a narrow definition of RPG.  That usually doesn't bother me, as it tends to keep the Forge cult-talk at bay, but it's worth recognizing that your view of new/popular/innovative RPGs will be greatly influenced by how broadly or narrowly your definition is.

I'm leaning towards "Adventure Game" for my own project.  ;)

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, I know you say all this just a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in fact, I really do think that Clash's style of games, and everything of the sort that BM games is doing (Hearts & Souls, etc) really is where the true future of small-press RPGs lies.   If a small-press RPG is going to suddenly turn into a runaway hit, it will be one of these, and not one of the Forge's offerings.

I suspect it'll be somewhere in the middle.   That is, something very much like what Clash is doing now, just a little further out, and something that has a singular and powerful feel to it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYes, they are.

They are, regardless, clearly games - ones which require roleplaying.  They don't claim to be RPGs, nor do they fit your model of what an RPG is.  They are, however, a commercial success.

You asked for an example of something that discarded the model (while, one assumes, retaining a large chunk of the core activity) and succeeded commercially.  I gave you one.

So, who the fuck cares what they're "closer to"?

I'd say that LARPS have also been very successful on the whole.  I would suggest that part of that success is that they didn't try to market themselves as pnp RPGs; they recognized they were a different hobby and went their own way.

Fleetwood Mac had a point you know, you CAN go your own way...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd say that LARPS have also been very successful on the whole. I would suggest that part of that success is that they didn't try to market themselves as pnp RPGs; they recognized they were a different hobby and went their own way

Hmm... interestingly enough White Wolf isn't marketing either the LARP version of Vampire or the tabletop version as an "RPG".

Quote from: White Wolf re:VampireJoin the revival of the Storytelling tradition. Vampire: The Requiem invites you to tell your own stories set within the world of the Kindred. This book includes rules for using vampires in World of Darkness chronicles, covering everything from the five clans to covenants to Disciplines, bloodlines, storytelling advice and a complete spread of game systems governing the undead.

Do they refer to their products as RPGs anymore?  Are there other "RPG" companies who have also stopped using that term?

Quote from: RPGPunditFleetwood Mac had a point you know, you CAN go your own way...

*Shrug*

I'm increasingly less sure that calling a game an RPG has real meaning.

Hell, I don't wave LARP around as RPG-play, or How to Host a Murder.  But I do think that those games, along with oddities like Executive Decision, have just as much claim (if not more) to the title as World of Warcraft and it's relations do - and no amount of fighting will stop those games from being called RPGs.

D&D, as you might note, doesn't spend a lot of time it's pages defining what other roleplaying games are, because that way lies advertising those other games.  It defines itself.

I'm beginnning to think that one of the largest things that RPG designs outside of D&D do wrong is in giving a damn whether or not they qualify, and bothering to define "RPG" to self-include inside their pages.

Quote from: SettembriniOkay.
Settle for the big one.
This is the penultimate post I will ever make, and it will crush many a dream:

Nobody needs new games.

Penultimate post? What's this about?

Oh, and engaging with your point: if everyone stopped buying things they didn't need, it wouldn't just be the RPG industry that would be in trouble. Worldwide economic collapse would be the more pressing concern.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*Shrug*

I'm increasingly less sure that calling a game an RPG has real meaning.

I guess I'm smoking whatever it is you're smoking, because I really, really agree with this. Or maybe I not very concerned about what they call it, so long as whatever it is, in whatever way it does, continues to entertain the crew and me.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Abyssal MawWe can all acknowledge D&D is the biggest, right? But D&D is also weird and practically unique in the way it does what it does when compared to other RPGs. This is pointed out quite often. There are very few RPGs that still have such a robust tactical core-game, despite the fact that they rule the market. Why is that?

Like, duh. :)

Because it's a BITCH to design.

It's something that Tweet did absolutely right for DnD. He established a simple, easy-to-understand mechanic with the capability to be easily expanded, manipulated, and perhaps most importantly, consistently complexified.

Note that it's capable of being consistently complexified-- not that all users will be consistent when making it more complex.

I'm not ashamed to say that I find such complexity daunting to design -- more importantly, I'm simply not interested in it any more. I'm not interested in touch-feely gaming either. So I choose to streamline my efforts and let the user complicate their lives if they want to.

For my purposes, traditional gaming is:
Players play a character (or rarely, multiple characters).
They quantitatively describe those characters using attributes.
They usually roll dice to resolve task attempts, and incorporate their attributes in some sort of calculation.
They move these characters through some story organized/initiated by a single GM.

And Pundit -- I think I left a note in the DoN review when I shipped off your package. A time stamp, of sorts. :) Not sure how long it takes mail to move from California to your doorstep.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, its not.  But it is an argument against the suggestion that in order to "move forward" we must actively reject and depose all existing conventions, and that this kind of change is something that would either be desirable or successful.

And I never made that suggestion.  

Quote from: RPGPunditIn particular, my thread was pointing out that the particular direction guided by the aphorism, which the Forge Crowd pulled out of their collective asses, that "the best most popular game will be the game where you have a single very narrow theme and a perfectly-tooled system that leaves no need or room for interpretation by any tyrannical DM" was one that ignored the plethora of possibilities offered by conventional RPGs, and these more open systems are more naturally appealing and tied to what players really want, in direct contradiction to Forge Dogma.

First of all, I agree with you that the Forge dogma that traditional RPGs are broken is just dumb.  However, you're making the further claim about unconventional designs.  

The key question is why you think that about unconventional RPGs.  

If you want to say make an empirical argument based on their small current unit sales, that's fine.  We can look at the number about how well Forge games compare to traditional games with the same distribution and marketing.  If you want to say they're less appealing because of the quality of the writing or somesuch, then we can compare criticism of the text.  Again, I might or might not agree depending on the game.

However, what I see is an argument based solely on the principle that they're different than what was successful in the past (i.e. D&D and Vampire).  And that's an empty argument, as I said.  Every successful new game has been unconventional to what has gone before.

Let me start of by saying that innovative and good are best, but if you can't be both innovative and good go with good.

Where rules are concerned we need to keep in mind this truth, we are limited in our ability to know and to understand. Because a world - even an imaginary one - is too large and too complex for us to fully comprehend, we can never create a system of rules that will cover what is possible in any detail. Any rule system must perforce be flexible enough to be applied to different situations, and that means the rules must be broad and not narrow. This means that those rules that can be used in different situations instead of just one work better than rules that are more narrowly used.

With this caveat. There are situations where the rules have to be applied differently than in other situations. But such are best left to guidelines for applying a rule in such circumstances.

The first step is accepting the fact we can't legislate every little thing with a specific legislation for each. We can only create broadly applicable rules that cover a range of possiblities, and allow those rules to apply to new situations similar to old.

Remember, it is not how the homicide was done, what matters is the killer's intent.

Quote from: rumbleAnd Pundit -- I think I left a note in the DoN review when I shipped off your package. A time stamp, of sorts. :) Not sure how long it takes mail to move from California to your doorstep.

It shouldn't take more than about two or three weeks. So if we're past that date, its time to start being a little concerned.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm beginnning to think that one of the largest things that RPG designs outside of D&D do wrong is in giving a damn whether or not they qualify, and bothering to define "RPG" to self-include inside their pages.

Yeah... I'm starting to think along these lines as well.  Not worrying if it's an "RPG" and focusing more on whether it's a well designed game (fun, easy to learn, depth of play, appropriate play-time, etc) seems like a better idea.

I'm not convinced "RPG" is all that greate a term for marketing to new players either.

Quote from: David RI guess I'm smoking whatever it is you're smoking, because I really, really agree with this. Or maybe I not very concerned about what they call it, so long as whatever it is, in whatever way it does, continues to entertain the crew and me.

Regards,
David R

Damn skippy.

QuoteI'm not convinced "RPG" is all that greate a term for marketing to new players either.

Maybe they should all be called KMRLRPGs (Kinda Multiplayer Real Life RPGs). Well, there's probably a better one then that, but it's a start. :)

QuoteYeah... I'm starting to think along these lines as well.  Not worrying if it's an "RPG" and focusing more on whether it's a well designed game (fun, easy to learn, depth of play, appropriate play-time, etc) seems like a better idea.

Ron Edwards tries this. His biggest project (Spione) "shall not be called" RPG, is not discussed at the forge, and is supposed to be distributed through bookstores.
I´d say it´s still a RPG, but at least Ron doesn´t want it to be one, or to be known as one.

Quote from: SettembriniRon Edwards tries this. His biggest project (Spione) "shall not be called" RPG, is not discussed at the forge, and is supposed to be distributed through bookstores.
I´d say it´s still a RPG, but at least Ron doesn´t want it to be one, or to be known as one.

*groan*
much like Kevin Smith saying  "This movie isn't for critics" (re: Gigli)
so that in case any 'brain damaged' gamers have comments about it, they can be disregarded with hand-waving and monocle-tightening. (cause it's not a game...for you.)

it's as if he's worried about some imperceptible taint that will rub off on his work...you know, the 'taint' that will make 'straights' or non-gamers not buy the game (oops NOT AN RPG THOUGH!) because it's associated with uh RPGs (?)

ughh...back to never reading theory again.

Quote from: mythusmageLet me start of by saying that innovative and good are best, but if you can't be both innovative and good go with good.

I'd say you can go with either.  For example, if you've got a game which would go head-to-head with D&D -- then I can totally understand trying to stand out by putting in something different rather than just making another D&D clone, even if it would be a really high-quality D&D clone.  

Speaking as a consumer...  Even if an attempted innovation isn't the best it could possibly be, I appreciate breaking new ground rather than retreading the same stuff.  If your stuff is good, but doesn't do anything new compared to what I've already got, then I'm not going to buy your stuff.  Being almost as good a sci-fi game as Traveller (a very good game) doesn't necessarily win you any points given that I already have Traveller.  

Quote from: mythusmageWhere rules are concerned we need to keep in mind this truth, we are limited in our ability to know and to understand. Because a world - even an imaginary one - is too large and too complex for us to fully comprehend, we can never create a system of rules that will cover what is possible in any detail.

I don't have an issue with this, but it's also irrelevant to the thread here.  I'm not saying that any one rules design is better or worse either way.  I'm just saying that whatever you do, it should try something new.

So, over in a post on The Error of Game Design Priorities (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=54825&postcount=57), Elliot said:

Quote from: Elliot WilenBeyond that, though, we have a fundamental clash between the interests of hobbyists and those of designers. It's hardly in a designer's financial or career interest to make a D&D clone (maybe with a different setting). The paradox is that's what most hobbyists want.

No, that's not what most hobbyists want.  Most current RPG hobbyists want D&D.  

This is exactly the error which my thread is about.  Obviously, if you look only at the current sales, then you're going to conclude that whatever is selling best is what people want.  However, this is a clear mistake.  There have been dozens and dozens of indie and non-indie designers over three decades who have imagined that by because D&D was successful, they can succeed by making something as close as possible to D&D.  It's a dumb idea and it never works.  

To get a successful new design, you have to do something new.  Every time there was a success in game design, you see the same thing.  D&D was different than previous wargames.  Vampire was different from D&D.  Magic: The Gathering was not the same as the card games which went before it.  Etc.

Quote from: jhkimMost current RPG hobbyists want D&D.  

This is exactly the error which my thread is about.  Obviously, if you look only at the current sales, then you're going to conclude that whatever is selling best is what people want.  However, this is a clear mistake.  There have been dozens and dozens of indie and non-indie designers over three decades who have imagined that by because D&D was successful, they can succeed by making something as close as possible to D&D.  It's a dumb idea and it never works.

Well, let's have a little clarity here. People weren't trying to make something as close as possible to D&D. They try to make something that improves on D&D, but most of them don't improve enough, or differentiate enough. Or the "improvements" they come up with actually work contrary to whatever it is that makes D&D popular.

But a number of them did succeed by making minor variations on the fundamentals of the D&D paradigm. They just didn't displace D&D. There was nothing stupid about Runequest, Traveller, WFRP, GURPS, etc. If the modern "focused" games ever compete with these in terms of commercial success, I think it would largely be attributable to technological developments in production, marketing, and distribution, rather than design.

Beyond that, I'm opposed to the idea that hobbyists are served by innovation the same way that game designers are. The problem with a lot of the so-called "Fantasy Heartbreakers" is that somebody tried to market them (using traditional methods, I might add), not that they were designed in the first place. For designers, "traditional designs" may be a mistake--though I do not know if a well-made small-press traditional design on an unusual subject is any less commercially-viable than an average Forge-style game. But it's a different question entirely which type of game better serves the bulk of hobbyists. And if you're designing a game mainly for your own use, perhaps with an eye to sharing it or selling it through a low-risk sales paradigm--then innovation should be completely secondary to making a game you enjoy.

In that sense there's no error at all to tradition-based game design.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, let's have a little clarity here. People weren't trying to make something as close as possible to D&D. They try to make something that improves on D&D, but most of them don't improve enough, or differentiate enough. Or the "improvements" they come up with actually work contrary to whatever it is that makes D&D popular.

But a number of them did succeed by making minor variations on the fundamentals of the D&D paradigm. They just didn't displace D&D. There was nothing stupid about Runequest, Traveller, WFRP, GURPS, etc.

I didn't say there was.  All of these set out to do something different (though arguably GURPS is a collection of prior innovations).  RQ threw out classes, levels, alignment, and more.  Traveller did the same and went to a completely untested genre.  

By your logic, applied at the time, each of these would have been misguided, because they didn't give what the majority of the market wanted.  The fallacy is that you're using the current market as a way to judge what people want.  Obviously, if your only data point is the past market, then what people want is what is in the past.  You conclude from this that there is no appeal in games which are different than what is in the past.  

Now, at this point you may have a response that the changes in RuneQuest were perfectly fine -- those were all changes within the bounds of traditional RPGs, while Forge games are outside of it.  But I assert that you're just using hindsight to justify this.  Your definition of what traditional RPGs are is based on the breaks from tradition which came before.  

In short, the core of your argument is "X is different than what most gamers are currently playing -- therefore most people don't like X and it won't be a success".  Regardless of what X is, this argument is flawed.  There are a lot of valid arguments to be made against the Forge and Forge-related designs, but this isn't one of them.

What I find funny is that many of the newer games I've read (including D20) are games that have been designed or re-designed based off hiccups of "traditional" RPG play.  When you read them, it's usually extremely transparent what they are trying to remedy.  We've even created terms that define these hiccups.  Railroading, Munchkin, Turtle, Power Gamer, etc...  People that defend "traditional" play typically use the "my players or GM never did that" defense.  I call BULLSHIT to that line of defense.  That's why we all identify with the terms.  We just surround ourselves with players that fit our style of play.  It works because we find the people that make it work.  

The newer games are trying to create a style where anyone can play regardless of the players personnel style.  Instead of trying to find people that represent what you consider a "good" player or "good" GM, you can play with the people you have.

Come on, John, that's a caricature of what I'm saying. The closest you've come to representing my actual opinion is that RQ et. al. do in fact operate within the bounds of traditional RPGs: the GM/player split between responsibility for world/character, use of task resolution as opposed to conflict resolution (whatever that is), and a relatively "free form" approach to motivation & scenario framing within the game (complicating things away from pure "win/lose"). Yet they use that basic framework to address a variety of subjects, or simply to refine technical issues like realism, detail, streamlined mechanics, etc. You might as well argue that the same calculus should be used in the decision to produce and market The Godfather as Drawing Restraint (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446685/), concluding that The Godfather either was just as untraditional (and therefore worthy of being made), or exactly like The Adventures of Robin Hood, and therefore a waste of film.

Quote from: GunslingerThe newer games are trying to create a style where anyone can play regardless of the players personnel style.  Instead of trying to find people that represent what you consider a "good" player or "good" GM, you can play with the people you have.

Yeah, I call BS on that. If the player's personal style doesn't mesh with the game's focus, then the group is busted. A benefit of the less focused games is that they can adapt through a process of group socialization.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYeah, I call BS on that. If the player's personal style doesn't mesh with the game's focus, then the group is busted. A benefit of the less focused games is that they can adapt through a process of group socialization.

Good point.  Let me try that again.  "The newer games are trying to create a style where anyone can play regardless of the players personnel style...if they buy off on the focus of the game".

Quote from: Elliot WilenCome on, John, that's a caricature of what I'm saying. The closest you've come to representing my actual opinion is that RQ et. al. do in fact operate within the bounds of traditional RPGs: the GM/player split between responsibility for world/character, use of task resolution as opposed to conflict resolution (whatever that is), and a relatively "free form" approach to motivation & scenario framing within the game (complicating things away from pure "win/lose").

How is what I said a caricature?  As far as I can see, you are exactly repeating what I described.  Can you state somewhere that you differ from my post?  

As I see it, this definition of traditional RPGs uses selection and hindsight.  Traditional games also involve rolling polyhedral dice, having character sheets, and sci-fi/fantasy content.  If we went back in time, we'd also say they involved playing the good guys, and various other commonalities.  

Back in the nineties, there were violent arguments over the radical new diceless games -- as I think you recall from rgfa.  People would say they were unplayable, or simply couldn't imagine how they could work.  Now, on the one hand, it's not like diceless games were terribly successful over the past 15 years, but no one talks about how radical they are these days.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou might as well argue that the same calculus should be used in the decision to produce and market The Godfather as Drawing Restraint (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446685/), concluding that The Godfather either was just as untraditional (and therefore worthy of being made), or exactly like The Adventures of Robin Hood, and therefore a waste of film.

I don't recall saying anything about how to produce and market, nor that everything was equally new and different.  I'm saying that both the Godfather and Drawing Restraint have something new compared to the films that came before.  There can be greater and lesser degrees of difference, but simply being different is not a mark against something nor does it show that it will be unsuccessful.  

Specifically about RPGs, though, most of the Forge games are hardly category-breaking to this degree.  You suggest that conflict resolution, though vague, makes some categorical difference -- but I don't see it.  I've gone back and forth from play of Buffy, to Amber, to Dogs, to Dead of Night, and while there were differences each time, none of them was seen as a different activity.  Each player has their character sheet; they roll their dice pools; etc.

Quote from: jhkimI'd say you can go with either.

(major snippage)

Making a wild guess here, I'd say you like new things. I like new things too, but at my age I've seen enough new things that newness alone no longer cuts it. New and good, now you're cooking.

New gets you the people who like new, but it doesn't keep them. Once the new has worn off, they're off looking for more new. New and good has a better chance of hooking those who will stay with what you've done. You want your effort to make a real impact in the world, you need to produce something that will be around for awhile. New alone doesn't last very long, for new soon becomes old.

Where old is concerned, don't dismiss it so cavalierly. Just because it's been done before doesn't mean you can't do it your own way. Maybe even better. The (n)WoD is not the last word in playing the monster. (Or even the monster as superhero. :) Steven Brown's The Everlasting is an interesting, albeit flawed, reworking of the (o)WoD. In the right hands I think it could be a better take on the trope as White Wolf presents it today.

My points is; innovate, but don't rely on innovation alone. Do it well and your innovation will go further than it would otherwise.

BTW, that bit about being limited in our understanding? It's about rules heavy design. All inclusive designs where everything has to have a specific rule just for it. You know, one rule for walking across a wood floor, another for walking across a waxed wood floor, still another for walking across a waxed wood floor while wearing crepe soled shoes. That sort of thing. Provide the basics, and encourage initiative and innovation on the part of the prospective GM.

Quote from: mythusmageMaking a wild guess here, I'd say you like new things. I like new things too, but at my age I've seen enough new things that newness alone no longer cuts it. New and good, now you're cooking.

Yes, though I like old things too.  Many of my favorite games (and those I've played recently) designed in the 80s -- James Bond 007, Ars Magica 2nd, Hero 4th.  But I like my new things to be, well, new.  

Quote from: mythusmageMy points is; innovate, but don't rely on innovation alone. Do it well and your innovation will go further than it would otherwise.

I completely agree.

John, your comments are a caricature of what I wrote since (pretty obviously) I believe my reason for viewing RQ et. al. as traditional RPGs isn't just tradition and hindsight, but innate characteristics of the form and how it is received. Based on that, I'm not saying that new games shouldn't do anything new. I also doubt that Pundit or anyone else is advocating that new games should keep doing exactly the same thing, either.

Instead, I'm expressing skepticism about the potential audience of games that are similar to "traditional RPGs" but which deviate in certain key ways. Nor do I think we can write off innovation within established forms--the kind of innovation that Pundit and others favor.

To go back to my movie example, there's still plenty of demand for more mafia movies, family dramas, slapstick comedies, etc. The demand for avant-garde art films is minuscule by comparison. Is this only because the public prefers the familiar? Or is it because the popular stuff has an innate universal appeal? Personally, I think it's the latter; no amount of familiarity or education is going to wean the public off of Shrek and onto the films of Andy Warhol.

Aside from that, it's worth asking, "Who cares?"--not to dismiss the whole discussion but to note that the importance of innovation depends on your frame of reference. For the sake of this thread you're engaging Pundit in the area where I think he's strongest: the argument from popularity and marketability. To counter that on its own terms, I really think one has to say that competing in the traditional market is just too brutal, while if a designer wants to make a buck and get noticed, it's far easier to cater to relatively unexploited tastes, even if they're found in narrower segments of the population.

Quote from: Elliot WilenTo counter that on its own terms, I really think one has to say that competing in the traditional market is just too brutal, while if a designer wants to make a buck and get noticed, it's far easier to cater to relatively unexploited tastes, even if they're found in narrower segments of the population.

There is no proof whatsoever that all the alternative markets that RPG-variants could reach are smaller.

Many indications point to the contrary.

Oh, and about this:

Quote from: jhkimI don't recall saying anything about how to produce and market

Since I reference marketing again in my last post, you might want to object again. But if you're not talking about marketability, then what is your reason for saying that a new game should do something new?

Suppose I'm a designer and you tell me my game isn't innovative enough, by whatever standard you use to measure innovation. Why should I listen to you?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere is no proof whatsoever that all the alternative markets that RPG-variants could reach are smaller.

Many indications point to the contrary.

Nope, that's all speculation & hypothesis.

As is what I said about alternative markets being smaller.

But you'll notice that I give my reasons. That is, I have a theory. To elaborate: I don't think the RPG-variants are differentiated, enough, from other forms of entertainment. For well-structured games with clearcut procedures, German-style board games are going to be superior to RPG-like entertainments. For creative freedom and narrative (in the non-jargon sense) immersion (ditto), I think traditional RPGs will probably continue to enjoy wider popularity.

The alternative games have a market. I just don't think it will exceed that of these other two categories, and where it overlaps, I think those other varieties of games will generally dominate.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNope, that's all speculation & hypothesis.

:D

Ayup, and to go a little farther, we'll know eventually which hypothesis is right. I just want to be clear where the disagreement lies.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOh, and about this:Since I reference marketing again in my last post, you might want to object again. But if you're not talking about marketability, then what is your reason for saying that a new game should do something new?

Suppose I'm a designer and you tell me my game isn't innovative enough, by whatever standard you use to measure innovation. Why should I listen to you?

Just to resolve this side comment first...   I assumed that "marketing" meant advertising, cover design, sales channels, and so forth -- which is separate from how the game itself is designed.  If by "marketing" you mean how the game is designed and plays, then yes, I am talking about marketing.

i.e. If you want to get a large number of people to play your game on the merits of its design and play (as opposed to just advertising or a shiny license or whatever), then you have to do something new.

Yes, by marketing I mean everything that's done with an eye to the market. From deciding to make a marketable game, to subject, design, art, &c.

In this case, we're talking about marketing as it concerns design (and I guess subject).

Not that I consider marketing to be the most important aspect of design. I especially don't think that widespread popularity needs to be one's goal even for commercial success. But it helps to know the standard we're using, for the sake of discussion.

Quote from: Elliot WilenJohn, your comments are a caricature of what I wrote since (pretty obviously) I believe my reason for viewing RQ et. al. as traditional RPGs isn't just tradition and hindsight, but innate characteristics of the form and how it is received.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNope, that's all speculation & hypothesis.

As is what I said about alternative markets being smaller.

But you'll notice that I give my reasons. That is, I have a theory.
(snipped)

Er, Elliot?  You never mentioned this theory earlier in the thread.  That's a fine theory.  I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm pondering it now.  

However, my point was that your basis for thinking this is a theory.  It is, as you say, speculation, which is not yet supported by the data.  

The data is that D&D is successful -- but also that many games very much like D&D are unsuccessful.  When designing a new game, it would be foolish to make a game as close as possible to D&D simply on the basis that it is successful.  By the same token, the data by itself does not indicate what degree or type of difference from D&D would be successful (except insofar as one matches past failures).

At least one of my replies went through several iterations and it's possible I'm remembering more of my theory than actually made it into print. I think you can find it suggested above, though, in my comments about the basic paradigm of D&D as reflected in other games.

Here's what I have from a draft I saved:

QuoteIt would be more worthwhile to pursue this question of whether there's an essential "itness" to traditional RPGs, in terms of their reception by the public at large. I think there is. RPGs were originally defined by how they distinguished themselves from regular boardgames or wargames:

1. the use of a referee
2. the noncompetitive quality
3. lack of formal goals (the classic nonanswer to "How do you win?")
4. large sections of procedure left up to freeform discretion (concepts like whose "turn" it is, or a finite list of possible "moves", or even "breaking the rules is cheating" often do not compute in RPGs)
5. ongoing play as opposed to self-contained game sessions.

As a number of these elements have been challenged in the new "nontraditional" RPGs, quite a few people have remarked positively or negatively on their "boardgame-like" quality. I believe the number of people who react by saying, "why not just play a boardgame?" is telling. It suggests to me that these games are going to have trouble carving out a niche for themselves either in the hobby or in the population at large. That is, people who enjoy tight, formal mechanics are going to focus on German games (or Bridge, etc.); people who enjoy the freedom of roleplaying are going to focus on traditional games, or even freeform (online text-based) RP. The group that actually focuses on nontraditional games instead of seeing them as an occasional diversion is going to be smaller than either of the other two.

And note that not just D&D, but a good number of other games have succeeded with that paradigm.