Quote from: jgantsElliot is right, and Uncle Ronny is definately wrong - the key factor in making D&D popular was being able to imagine yourself as a character within the structured form of a game, and the ability of that character to improve over time.

IMO, the biggest appeal of RPGs has always been gaining XP and improving your character over time.  This key defining element is what made the computer RPGs so popular and led to MMOs.

While that's true, Traveller managed to be quite popular in the early days despite the fact that it lacked the sort of character improvement you are talking about.  None of my friends in high school, where Traveller was pretty popular, complained about the absence of XP and levels.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile that's true, Traveller managed to be quite popular in the early days despite the fact that it lacked the sort of character improvement you are talking about.  None of my friends in high school, where Traveller was pretty popular, complained about the absence of XP and levels.

IIRC, Character improvement in Traveler was handled differently, but it still existed.  Unfortunately, it's been so long since I played it I can't quite remember how it worked.   I just remmber being impressed by the ability to advance my character by learning useful sets of skills over time.  Or am I mis-remembering?

I seem to remember that improving your space ship was a big part of the appeal of Traveller. At least with the guys I played with a few times back in the day.

QuoteElliot is right, and Uncle Ronny is definately wrong

Eliot hasn't demonstrated his case yet. So let's just see what Ron says before we say he's wrong. Waiting for the links, Eliot.

Quote from: HaffrungI seem to remember that improving your space ship was a big part of the appeal of Traveller. At least with the guys I played with a few times back in the day.

Yes I remember that too, and yes, it was a major plus.  But I also recall being able to educate your character in different skills according to what I think of as career tracks.  That was also one of the things I liked about it.   I just can't for the life of me remember the details anymore.

You had to spend four years to improve a skill or stat by one.

Quote from: VBWyrdeIIRC, Character improvement in Traveler was handled differently, but it still existed.  Unfortunately, it's been so long since I played it I can't quite remember how it worked.   I just remmber being impressed by the ability to advance my character by learning useful sets of skills over time.  Or am I mis-remembering?

In Classic Traveller, there were rules for advancement but they took years of game time to get a level (as droog mentioned) and I don't remember any character being played for long enough to actually go up a level.  It clearly wasn't a key attraction of the game.  This was largely offset by the (somewhat novel at the time) creation of experienced characters who could start out skilled.

Quote from: droogEliot hasn't demonstrated his case yet. So let's just see what Ron says before we say he's wrong. Waiting for the links, Eliot.

I gave a fairly precise indication where to look, and as a bonus it happens to be rather germane to one of the overarching themes of this thread. But I don't really feel like linking directly to the Forge; the thread's gotten bad enough...honestly I don't know why it wasn't started in Pundit's forum, or why it hasn't yet been moved to Off-Topic.

Quote from: jgantsI don't know - the impact of Harn and EPT on the gaming world would be just slightly higher than the impact of Cyborg Commando or Powers & Perils, IMO.  They just weren't that popular - cult hits at best.

Elliot is right, and Uncle Ronny is definately wrong - the key factor in making D&D popular was being able to imagine yourself as a character within the structured form of a game, and the ability of that character to improve over time.

IMO, the biggest appeal of RPGs has always been gaining XP and improving your character over time.  This key defining element is what made the computer RPGs so popular and led to MMOs.

None of those "early pioneers" wanted to create a collaborative story-telling game in the least.The world-building aspect became a popular pursuit for people who wanted to write RPG supplements or be the GM.  

Which is what the Forge and GNS theory are all about - a bunch of frustrated GM wanna-bees (usually stuck being players or just bad GMs with no skills) combined with a bunch of writer wanna-bees (who wish they could create worlds like Gygax, Arneson, Stafford, etc.) coming up with a big set of excuses.  It's pretentious nonsense whose only purpose is to try and make a bunch of would-be elitists feel better about their own lack of superiority.

Actually Harn is still going strong within a niche group of gamers. I don't know about Powers & Perils, never played it, nor kept up with it. I agree that having your characters improve over time is a big part of what makes up an RPG and what sets it apart from wargames, most boardgames, and everything else in general.

As far as storytelling and worldbuilding goes, that became a popular pursuit not becuase I wanted so much to do it (For I would have much rather just played the game, instead of GMing it) but becuase the players wanted the detail.

They would become immersed in the game with an interesting storyline, so much so, that they would call me up and bug me, and follow me around asking questions to absorb as much "in game" info as they could. Awww... they'd be busy hypothesizing possible scenarios and countermoves to the other players actions and constantly inquiring about different things seeking to gain an advantage over the other players, and notable npc's.

I think the early Thieves World novels caught the spirit of this type of gaming with the writers you know, always going one up on each other, and trying to figure out a way to twist the story so their characters did interesting things or prevailed in conflicts between the characters. So too with many of the players of my early campaigns, between each other, the various elements within the game world, and with the gameworld npc's and monsters. Those were great days!

I'm afraid I'm not up to trash-talking other game designers and groups at the moment, instead preferring to continue to focus on the elements of the game that are exciting, innovative, and that captures the players imagination and inspires them to want to actively participate in the game to make a difference for the other players, to make it a fun exciting, unpredictable experience of discovery and success.

Quote from: GameDaddyI think the early Thieves World novels caught the spirit of this type of gaming with the writers you know, always going one up on each other, and trying to figure out a way to twist the story so their characters did interesting things or prevailed in conflicts between the characters. So too with many of the players of my early campaigns, between each other, the various elements within the game world, and with the gameworld npc's and monsters. Those were great days!

While I'm 150% certain that kind of gaming was an utter exception at the time, it definitely sounds great, especially in light of the Thieves World analogy.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI gave a fairly precise indication where to look, and as a bonus it happens to be rather germane to one of the overarching themes of this thread.

Your claim. You ought to supply the proof.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe thing is, any action can have multiple aims. For example, I can work because I like the work and I want to be paid. Likewise, RPGPundit can post a thread about the ideas of Gygax because he likes attention and because he likes the ideas of Gygax. Given that this is a discussion forum, it's sensible to focus on the things that are different between the threads, rather than the things that are constant. That is, speak to the topic of the thread or shut the fuck up.


.

I missed this earlier. Just so we're clear. I'll do as I like, and next time you feel the need to suggest otherwise, cut to the chase and fuck right off.
But please fuck off in less than 500 words, otherwise I'll just scroll on by- and what a shame that would be.

Quote from: droogYour claim. You ought to supply the proof.

Well, I guess you'll just have to do without. Others can decide for themselves.

Elliot and droog's exchange reminds me of that game system I was talking about, where you don't have hit points but lose levels off your attributes instead. So in a physical conflict you lose strength, agility and fitness; in a mental or social conflict you lose perception, education and confidence.

I think droog just battered Elliot's confidence down to zilch. "Whatever, I can't be bothered anymore."

droog is t3h w1n.

Not that I really understood what they were arguing about.