Call me easily amused if you will, but I'd rather stick to the basic, tried-and-tested concepts than "genuinely alternate" ones.  

Now, in an ideal world, I'd be playing fresh twists on old ideas:  say, Elizabethan religious intrigue in a fantasy setting, or pirates in Middle Earth, or how The Black Company books are set in an Amber shadow.  But sports RPGs?  Yawnsville.  

Who else?

I prefer to judge each idea - and its execution - on its own merits. Originality and Quality of Execution are two axes of my n-axis internal game review system. They have nothing to do with each other. You can have Quality without Originality, the opposite, both, or neither - all in varying degrees. You can have both and I still won't like it - or neither and I will love it - for other reasons, some non-rational, some very subjective.

-clash

Why is this a different thread?

That said, clash has it in one.  There are game ideas out there that no one has played yet because no one has developed a compelling way to play it yet.  Prior to 1991, how many people thought that playing a vampire and not a vampire hunter would be fun?

!i!

I dunno, I like new things if they're well-executed. Running 'round and 'round on the same hamster wheel gets pretty stale after a while. I'd like to see a well-executed courtroom procedural RPG and, perhaps, another somthing like Aria with all-encompassing character and time scales.

QuotePrior to 1991, how many people thought that playing a vampire and not a vampire hunter would be fun?

Well, Dave Hargrave opened up the possibility on his random background tables in 1976, so apparently someone thought it would be fun before that.

And, come to think of it, the whole reason Clerics are in original D&D is because someone in Dave Arneson's pre-D&D roleplaying campaign got a vampire character, "Lord Fang", who had become undefeatable, so they invented a new character class to defeat undead.

So, um, try again.

Quote from: CalithenaSo, um, try again.

No way.  You cited exactly two examples.  As I said in my previous post, prior to 1991, was this a compelling option?  Did it drive a whole new direction in the game market?  You neglected the fact that Tunnels & Trolls and (technically) RuneQuest allowed vampire characters, too, so don't go getting all up in my grill with your grognard cred.  Hell, I came up with the idea for playing vampire characters in Call of Cthulhu way back in 1984 after reading "Interview With The Vampire".  But it didn't become viable as a game until someone figured out a way to make it compelling to roleplayers, and to market it to potential new RPGers, too.

!i!

And for what it's worth, I'm an example of a long time roleplayer who has never thought it was a good idea to play the vampire instead of the vampire hunter. As time (and the popularity of the idea) has advanced, my liking of the idea has gone steadily down to the point where you'd have to be female and smokin' hot and naked before I'd even entertain the idea, and then most likely I'd still pass on it. Just thinking about it now makes me both angry, and slightly nauseated.

You should be more gracious when you're owned. Thanks for the extra examples though.

Quote from: CalithenaYou should be more gracious when you're owned. Thanks for the extra examples though.

I actually think that Ian has a point here. Vampire took that same idea and made it a staple of hobby gaming. Nobody else did that, not even Dave.

Quote from: CalithenaYou should be more gracious when you're owned.

You should add smilies when you make a joke.  I think you know that you missed the point entirely.  And, if I need to spell the point out explicitly, it's that "genuinely alternate RPGs" are just ideas that are waiting to be exploited.  Not just thought up here in 1976 or there in 1984, but where someone took the idea and ran with it, making a whole new style or genre or branch of gaming in the process.  Something people just couldn't see how it would work as a stand-alone RPG before.

!i!

You know Lee, there's lots of rpg ideas I have no interest in.

Mecha is the example I tend to use, it's a good example because it's actually quite popular and I genuinely just do not see the interest.

So, you know what I do?  I exercise the mighty and terrible power of not buying mecha games.  Works pretty well I find.

Frankly, and without wishing to be unduly rude, what do I care whether or not most people want a particular idea?  What matters to me is whether enough people want it to make it viable, I have no dreams of empire or hegemony and I could care less about converting people.

Donjon never appealed to me as an idea, it just really doesn't grab me, so I didn't buy it.  Supers games I don't really enjoy, none of them, so I don't buy them.  Equally furries, don't get 'em, don't see the attraction (in any sense), so I don't buy furry games.

I mean this is obviously a reaction to my thread, did I say anywhere in it there was something wrong with the games we mostly play?  Or that we were lesser people for playing the stuff we play?  I'm a grognard, most of the games I play predate 1985, I just like a change of stuff from time to time and sometimes new stuff is refreshing.

So, who else?  Almost certainly 90%+ of the hobby I should imagine is with you, what of it?  I don't play with 90%+ of the hobby, I play with around five other people.

And Calithena, a couple of examples pre 1991 really doesn't defeat the Vampire point, Vampire made it the core of the game, not an optional add-on that got used hardly anywhere.  Incidentally, and I may be wrong on this, didn't Nightlife precede Vampire?

Quote from: BalbinusIncidentally, and I may be wrong on this, didn't Nightlife precede Vampire?

It did, in fact.  And its relative lack of success (relative to Vampire, that is) also goes to illustrate another point about alternate RPG ideas.  Coming up with the idea is one thing, but successfully exploring the idea is another matter.  Nightlife was out there, and by a number of accounts I've read here and there it was considered a superior game to Vampire:tM.  But, for whatever reasons, it never caught on the way that Vampire did.  The fact that one game that attempts to explore an unusual or untried facet of RPGs winds up in a dead-end doesn't mean that the idea is a total loss -- it could simply be that no one has struck upon the right approach yet.

Now, I poop-poo'd the notion of a sports RPG over in the other thread, but I'm totally willing to entertain the notion that greater minds than mine can someday figure out a compelling way to make it work.

!i!

Balb,

I didn't mean to come across as peeing on your parade.  Just more a matter-of-fact statement that most experimental new subject matter just doesn't appeal to me.  Fine if others want it.  

But really clash got it right.  There's only a small subset of RPGs that will appeal to me in any case, so a well-done, quality RPG about just might grab me.  But, in general, I *like* pseudo-Tolkien fantasy stuff, done well.  Poorly done retreads, not so much.

Lee

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIt did, in fact.  And its relative lack of success (relative to Vampire, that is) also goes to illustrate another point about alternate RPG ideas.  Coming up with the idea is one thing, but successfully exploring the idea is another matter.  Nightlife was out there, and by a number of accounts I've read here and there it was considered a superior game to Vampire:tM.  But, for whatever reasons, it never caught on the way that Vampire did.  The fact that one game that attempts to explore an unusual or untried facet of RPGs winds up in a dead-end doesn't mean that the idea is a total loss -- it could simply be that no one has struck upon the right approach yet.

Now, I poop-poo'd the notion of a sports RPG over in the other thread, but I'm totally willing to entertain the notion that greater minds than mine can someday figure out a compelling way to make it work.

!i!

It lacked the whole angst and metaphor for adolescence thing.

Nancy Collins IMO was a better writer than Anne Rice too, but Anne Rice sold more books...

Quote from: Lee ShortBalb,

I didn't mean to come across as peeing on your parade.  Just more a matter-of-fact statement that most experimental new subject matter just doesn't appeal to me.  Fine if others want it.  

But really clash got it right.  There's only a small subset of RPGs that will appeal to me in any case, so a well-done, quality RPG about just might grab me.  But, in general, I *like* pseudo-Tolkien fantasy stuff, done well.  Poorly done retreads, not so much.

Lee

No worries, sometimes I'm sensitive here because of other posters doing so.  I confuse people celebrating great trad stuff with people knocking potentially great new stuff.  That's my hangup though, not yours.

I will say that quality matters far more than originality and is not connected to it in any way, I'd far rather a well executed trad fantasy game with elves and dwarves and oh my than something novel which really doesn't run that well when you sit down at the table with it.

Originality is way overrated, but I still likes it on occasion...