Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;663072As far as dice pools (count success type) Shadowrun was before White Wolf. I think Prince Valiant (pool of coins) may have been slightly before SR.

Space 1889 I think might've used a dice pool for combat, but I can't remember when exactly it was, or if the pool was additive rather than success-counting.

For the step-dice, I think Savage Worlds was beaten out by Earthdawn. Oh and some people have argued that T&T combat (1977) would count as conflict resolution.

Hey BSJ you compiled that massive RPG mechanics list you must have a feel for this. What is your take?

I always felt there was OD&D as gen 0
then in Gen 1 you got loads of D&D rip offs + Runequest, Traveller, Bunnies and Burrows, FGU (inc C&S, Aftermath! and Bushido), CoC
then for Gen 2 you got the unified mechanics games, MSH, James Bond, Star Wars d6, Hero,
Then Gen 3 was a blossoming of mash ups and setting focus and WW and Amber and all that
Gen 4 was one d20 to rule them all
Gen 5 would be the narative control part and so on
making Gen 6 the OSR,  and the supersaturation of the environment with indie games where 300 copies sold is a runaway sucess...

YMMV of course

Quote from: jeff37923;662962Design premise wise, the EotE dice are similar in function to the W3e dice, however the dice themselves are different so you cannot substitute W3e dice for EotE dice. Results-wise, yes you could use regular polyhedral dice if there was a table translating the symbols to the numbers on regular polyhedral dice, but there isn't. You would have to reverse engineer something.

These dice and the rules that use them are a barrier to Players who want to try the game. FFG has created a counter-intuitive rule system for their game which is more complex than any version of a Star Wars RPG that has come previously. If you want to create a product that is hostile to novice or casual Players, than I would say that FFG has done great.

Now, the dice are funky so that when you are rolling for task resolution, you can see if there is something else that complicates the action, either good or bad. Not based on the degree of success or failure of the dice roll.

Now, I frown upon this gimmick because the default assumption here is that the GM does not have sufficient judgement to pace the game while it is being played and the funky dice are there to do the thinking for the GM. A good GM knows when to slow or speed up the action, make a task either easy or hard, and when to increase the gain or loss from a task depending on how the Players at that GM's table are reacting to the game while in play. Using dice instead of judgement in this manner removes one of the most important distinctions between a tabletop RPG and a computer program driven RPG.

And that is a difference between Modern gaming and Previous gaming.

I think that's a little harsh. Broadly it's true, but the dice were only intended to help people with the results they provide. The goal is ultimately one that's desirable or at least laudable.

Quote from: jibbajibba;663099Hey BSJ you compiled that massive RPG mechanics list you must have a feel for this. What is your take?

I always felt there was OD&D as gen 0
then in Gen 1 you got loads of D&D rip offs + Runequest, Traveller, Bunnies and Burrows, FGU (inc C&S, Aftermath! and Bushido), CoC
then for Gen 2 you got the unified mechanics games, MSH, James Bond, Star Wars d6, Hero,
Then Gen 3 was a blossoming of mash ups and setting focus and WW and Amber and all that
Gen 4 was one d20 to rule them all
Gen 5 would be the narative control part and so on
making Gen 6 the OSR,  and the supersaturation of the environment with indie games where 300 copies sold is a runaway sucess...

YMMV of course

OK since you asked...
jhkim's ages of RPG development is a fairly good summary of general trends, I think.
It goes to about 2004, since then I would probably add some sort of new category of 'metagame tactical challenge' to cover Marvel Heroic/Warhammer 3, probably D&D 4 - games where the rules are essentially separate to the fiction. FATE maybe need its own separate category as well.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/fashions.html


I think I agrees with your generation model pretty well (really realistic 80s games giving way to cinematic and storytelling systems). You could call Runequest a 'universal' system (or very nearly) but in the 80s universal systems didn't take off. Maybe since D&D was the trendsetter and didn't do it, maybe because the first set of games were usually designed by default from modelling lots of separate situations (while later games have been inspired by the first generation games and are 'simulations of simulations' - people are building games mostly using bits of existing older games rather than designing from first principles and the trend seems to be toward more and more abstraction. At some point genre modelling rather than realism came into vogue too.

I'm not an expert on either particularly early games (80s) or storygames, however it seems that there's very little real innovation. The biggest innovations really seem to have been having a GM to adjudicate events, hit points, using dice to simulate events, and maybe polyhedral dice, and they're in 0D&D and stolen by basically every rpg ever (well, apart from the polyhedral dice).
A lot of new game stuff is basically the same as in older games (nothing new under the sun) just with a new spin. Like, I hadn't even heard of Trust Points before, but the idea you can have a stat that has both positive/negative aspects for instance (what the book on Design Patterns by Whitson John Kirk would call a 'conflicted gauge') goes back until at least Werewolf (Rage) and probably earlier.  Or, aspects I can't offhand think of a formal system using compels etc. that existed pre FATE, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one, and its more of a formalization of something that happens in normal gaming anyway.
Likewise, I imagine something like Dungeon Worlds' partial successes has existed somewhere in some context, though probably as some specific mechanic rather than as a core principle applied everywhere at all times, and I can't think of a specific example offhand.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;663116OK since you asked...
jhkim's ages of RPG development is a fairly good summary of general trends, I think.
It goes to about 2004, since then I would probably add some sort of new category of 'metagame tactical challenge' to cover Marvel Heroic/Warhammer 3, probably D&D 4 - games where the rules are essentially separate to the fiction. FATE maybe need its own separate category as well.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/fashions.html


I think I agrees with your generation model pretty well (really realistic 80s games giving way to cinematic and storytelling systems). You could call Runequest a 'universal' system (or very nearly) but in the 80s universal systems didn't take off. Maybe since D&D was the trendsetter and didn't do it, maybe because the first set of games were usually designed by default from modelling lots of separate situations (while later games have been inspired by the first generation games and are 'simulations of simulations' - people are building games mostly using bits of existing older games rather than designing from first principles and the trend seems to be toward more and more abstraction. At some point genre modelling rather than realism came into vogue too.

I'm not an expert on either particularly early games (80s) or storygames, however it seems that there's very little real innovation. The biggest innovations really seem to have been having a GM to adjudicate events, hit points, using dice to simulate events, and maybe polyhedral dice, and they're in 0D&D and stolen by basically every rpg ever (well, apart from the polyhedral dice).
A lot of new game stuff is basically the same as in older games (nothing new under the sun) just with a new spin. Like, I hadn't even heard of Trust Points before, but the idea you can have a stat that has both positive/negative aspects for instance (what the book on Design Patterns by Whitson John Kirk would call a 'conflicted gauge') goes back until at least Werewolf (Rage) and probably earlier.  Or, aspects I can't offhand think of a formal system using compels etc. that existed pre FATE, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one, and its more of a formalization of something that happens in normal gaming anyway.
Likewise, I imagine something like Dungeon Worlds' partial successes has existed somewhere in some context, though probably as some specific mechanic rather than as a core principle applied everywhere at all times, and I can't think of a specific example offhand.

I see the 80s as the age of unified systems initally, which I think is an innovation and dice pools are an innovation enabling complex odds and degree of success caculations without fiddly bonus/mallus manipulation.

Quote from: jibbajibba;663065Post Old school innovation

James Bond - Hero Points, Degree of success based on Difficulty + skill Vs roll
Hero - Point buy (?), generic rule set
Amber - Auctioning of stats, diceless resolution
WoD - Dice pools

More recent

Various 'Storygames' - introducing elements of narrative control
Savage worlds - fixed target number but larger dice size as you gain XP
4e D&D - Advantage (apparently as a class skill for someone) to reduce numbers of Modifiers in combat

Yeah.  I know that there are plenty of variations that people played with outside of written rules, but I also think that there are more ideas that at least weren't commonly known that later appeared in print.  

Let's not forget a unified success mechanic - which is now taken for granted, but was still an innovation in the 1980s.  Degree of success and hero points technically appeared before James Bond 007, but it set the standard for integrated use of them.  

1) Advantages and disadvantages - part of point buy, mostly derived from Champions - later evolved into 3e's feats and FATE's stunts.  

2) Templates rather than classes.  (A class, by my definition, changes how you advance.  A template is a package of traits you get at the beginning, but advancement stays the same.)  

3) Disadvantages that pay based on how much they come up, rather than points during character generation.  (From Theatrix and The Babylon Project in the 90s, adapted into FATE.)  

4) Various systems of personality traits beyond disadvantages, such as Pendragon and later World of Darkness.  

5) Wealth systems that handle resources abstractly rather than by exact tallies of coins or dollars - starting with Swordbearer.  

6) Abstract systems for contacts and allies.

Apocalypse World already had a abstract wealth system in 2010, so I dont think Torchbearer invented it.

Also, did Wushu invented that kind of narrative combat ?

Edit: oh, and the idea of Taboos on Unknown Armies ? Did that already exist ?

Pretty sure D20 Modern had abstract wealth before AW.

Quote from: silva;663353Apocalypse World already had a abstract wealth system in 2010, so I dont think Torchbearer invented it.

Also, did Wushu invented that kind of narrative combat ?

Swordbearer was in 1982 and had an abstract wealth system.  There have been a bunch since then, such as DC Heroes and Blue Rose/True20.  Within the current crop of story games, Burning Wheel had an abstract wealth system in 2002 that long predates Apocalypse World.  

I haven't played Wushu - so I'm not sure what is meant by "that kind" of narrative combat.

Quote from: Rincewind1;663354Pretty sure D20 Modern had abstract wealth before AW.

They did have an abstract wealth system in d20 modern.

Oops, Ive read Torchbearer, not Swordbearer.

I loved the Wealth and Magic systems for Swordbearer.

Quote from: silva;663353Apocalypse World already had a abstract wealth system in 2010, so I dont think Torchbearer invented it.

That's hilarious.

Quote from: silva;663353Apocalypse World already had a abstract wealth system in 2010, so I dont think Torchbearer invented it.

"Barter" is a very concrete wealth system, and it's referenced plenty. The actual unit of wealth is abstract ("Something that someone else might be willing to trade for", and the characters have lived in the setting long enough to understand what that means), but the system itself, not so much.

Abstract wealth goes "You can buy no stuff / a little stuff / some stuff / lots of stuff / ALL OF THE STUFF!".

Quote from: jhkim;663357Swordbearer was in 1982 and had an abstract wealth system.

Dennis Sustare told me he came up with the wealth system in Swordbearer specifically to combat the "we loot everything" mentality of his gaming group.

QuoteThere have been a bunch since then, such as DC Heroes and Blue Rose/True20.

And mentioning DC Heroes, abstracting money really does impact play quite a bit and enforces genre conventions. I'm even tempted to say those kind of wealth systems are a lot more realistic than D&D hordes of gold because very rarely do people move around so frequently within economic classes, even in the literature. Conan was broke most of his life, even when he had tons of cash flow.

Quote from: jhkim;663296Yeah.  I know that there are plenty of variations that people played with outside of written rules, but I also think that there are more ideas that at least weren't commonly known that later appeared in print.  

Let's not forget a unified success mechanic - which is now taken for granted, but was still an innovation in the 1980s.  Degree of success and hero points technically appeared before James Bond 007, but it set the standard for integrated use of them.  

1) Advantages and disadvantages - part of point buy, mostly derived from Champions - later evolved into 3e's feats and FATE's stunts.  

2) Templates rather than classes.  (A class, by my definition, changes how you advance.  A template is a package of traits you get at the beginning, but advancement stays the same.)  

3) Disadvantages that pay based on how much they come up, rather than points during character generation.  (From Theatrix and The Babylon Project in the 90s, adapted into FATE.)  

4) Various systems of personality traits beyond disadvantages, such as Pendragon and later World of Darkness.  

5) Wealth systems that handle resources abstractly rather than by exact tallies of coins or dollars - starting with Swordbearer.  

6) Abstract systems for contacts and allies.

Good list. Just to nitpick and/or add to this.

*Champions (1981) was predated by Superhero 2044 (1977) for use of point-based character generation, and is said to be an influence on Champions.  Advantages as a thing must be at least that old, then.  
For 3E, I'd contend that  feats are really an evolution of proficiency systems in AD&D - Blind-Fight, Endurance, Two Weapon Style, Ambidexterity, weapon proficiencies and weapon specialization all existed as part of the proficiency system by 2nd Ed, but that's a bit of a side track.

*If you consider Runequest a universal system, that'd be 1978. (If you don't, I'm not sure what would count as the first universal system?).

*As for personality traits, Boot Hill has a 'Bravery' stat, and Call of Cthulhu has Sanity.

Arguably, any system that's ever given XP for roleplaying basically has rewarded 'disadvantages' much like theatrix/FATE, though less formally of course.