TheRPGSite

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;493641Honestly, I don't keep up with all the trends in RPGs at all and, quite frankly, I'm somewhat amazed at how many people do.

I tend to stick with the games I have played for years.

My take on it is: there's only so many variations on RPGs possible before new games becomes superfluous. I'm not trying to knock your thread, but really how many new spins on rules do we need? And also, pretty much every genre of fantasy / sci-fi has been exhausted, IMHO.

So is this, in your opinion, true?

For me, I'd have to say no. I've switched out my long term SF and Supers games of preference within the last year with new games that I like much better. (Icons for V&V; SBA for Traveller).

Quote from: Aos;493709So is this, in your opinion, true?

For me, I'd have to say no. I've switched out my long term SF and Supers games of preference within the last year with new games that I like much better. (Icons for V&V; SBA for Traveller).

Honestly, I don't keep up with all the trends in stories at all and, quite frankly, I'm somewhat amazed at how many people do.

I tend to stick with the stories I have read for years.

My take on it is: there's only so many variations on stories possible before new stories becomes superfluous. I'm not trying to knock your thread, but really how many new spins on narrative rules do we need? And also, pretty much every genre of literature has been exhausted, IMHO.

Apart from new movie games (eg. Babylon 5 RPG, etc), it seems me that many games are merely a slightly-different twist on older, existing games and attempts to create a 'perfect' rule system - which is futile because everyone is different and has their own preference.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;493713Honestly, I don't keep up with all the trends in stories at all and, quite frankly, I'm somewhat amazed at how many people do.

I tend to stick with the stories I have read for years.

My take on it is: there's only so many variations on stories possible before new stories becomes superfluous. I'm not trying to knock your thread, but really how many new spins on narrative rules do we need? And also, pretty much every genre of literature has been exhausted, IMHO.

For the most part, this is independent of the medium of choice.

(ie.  Whether books, television shows, movies, rpg games, fireside chats, open mic, lectures, live theater, etc ...).


EDIT:  Even some non-fiction is written in the same manner, such as biographies/autobiographies.

Some people treat RPGs like entertainment of their own. They like variety in playstyles, and finding new ones and experiencing them.

Some people treat RPGs like support structures for entertainment. They find one that supports their preferred playstyle and use it. Likely customizing it to fit them perfectly.

Neither way is better. I'm sure combinations of this, and perhaps other ways, exist.

Quote from: ggroy;493721For the most part, this is independent of the medium of choice.

(ie.  Whether books, television shows, movies, rpg games, fireside chats, open mic, lectures, live theater, etc ...).


EDIT:  Even some non-fiction is written in the same manner, such as biographies/autobiographies.

I was being sarcastic, but sure. This kind of complaint gets made about everything. It's whatchamacallit, "future shock".

I'm amazed at how thin a spin someone can put on an idea to make it seem fresh to me. My favorite example is Metal, Magic, and Lore. It's a few years old, but in my world, it's pretty new. It's a vanilla fantasy world with dwarves and elves and gnomes and whatnot. There's sword fights and magic spells and all that. Absolutely nothing new--in fact a deliberate avoidance of re-inventing those things. The designers wanted it to seem familiar.

The rules are at heart a very simple percentile system, not multiplicative, like Runequest, but additive, like Rolemaster. It's only different in that the usual percentages available to pcs in their skills are a fairly narrow band, added to a fairly narrow band of percentages for inherent difficulties of tasks. Very thin differences. Absolutely no reinvention of any wheel, and only marginal differences from existing systems.

But I like it best. The little differences they made are all things I like. The little bit more sense the rules make makes a big difference to me in play. The subtle things they do, like emphasizing what might seem like mundane, daily life details over gigantic whiz-bang wizardy wars make the game seem fresh and different.

It's the other side of the heartbreaker. Sometimes, a heartbreaker brings just enough to the table to truly improve the game at the table. Yes--it's harder to get people to play your game of choice now that it was when there weren't but a few games to choose from. But there are some pretty neat new games out there, even if they don't seem very ground-breaking.

Quote from: Kaldric;493724Some people treat RPGs like support structures for entertainment. They find one that supports their preferred playstyle and use it. Likely customizing it to fit them perfectly.

That right there? That's me. :)

But I don't begrudge other gamers their freedom to choose the other path. Some are looking for "the perfect system"... no matter if it takes a lifetime. ;) Some just haven't found something that quite works for them, and so they keep looking/buying. And yes, some enjoy (maybe even require?) the novelty that "new" mechanics bring.

And, I must admit, I've been a stick-in-the-mud d100 gamer for years now. Who knows what I'm missing out on! :p

I feel like that there is a narrow range of genres and mechanics that have been done very thoroughly.  

However, there is a huge range that is rarely attempted, including basically anything outside of sci-fi/fantasy adventure fiction, for example.  There is some variety in game mechanics, but it tends to cluster very strongly around just a few models.  You don't see many diceless games like Amber, or card mechanics like Castle Falkenstein, and plenty more.  The vast majority of games will have 3-8 attributes, 25-100 skills, and some action resolution based on a die roll for success against skill.  They're designed for a party of 3-6 adventurers who go have action-y adventures.

Brother, I'm constantly finding out new things that interest me even though some of it may be "old".

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Aos;493709So is this, in your opinion, true?

For me, I'd have to say no. I've switched out my long term SF and Supers games of preference within the last year with new games that I like much better. (Icons for V&V; SBA for Traveller).

My experience is pretty much identical. I was mostly running old, often out of print games. I would buy newer games from time to time but on balance they didn't tend to stick.

In the course of the last 18 months or so that's all changed. ICONS was a huge success in my group and I'm very happy with both Barbarians of Lemuria and Bulldogs!  I can see myself sticking with these games for a long time.

Quote from: Aos;493709So is this, in your opinion, true?

For me, I'd have to say no. I've switched out my long term SF and Supers games of preference within the last year with new games that I like much better. (Icons for V&V; SBA for Traveller).

Quote from: David R;493752Brother, I'm constantly finding out new things that interest me even though some of it may be "old".

Regards,
David R

This and this.

I am always happy to try new RPGs. That said, I do find myself running simpler RPGs than more complex ones.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;493714Apart from new movie games (eg. Babylon 5 RPG, etc), it seems me that many games are merely a slightly-different twist on older, existing games and attempts to create a 'perfect' rule system - which is futile because everyone is different and has their own preference.

I agree with you here, which is why I disagreed with your post in the other thread.

As John Kim says, it's surprising how narrow the genres covered are. If I want fairly mainstream fantasy then sure, there's a vast ocean of games doing it and the chances of a new one bringing something genuinely different to the party are low (though even there I'd argue that The One Ring rpg looks closer to getting Tolkien than anything else ever has).

The other thread though was about a modern day military rpg, with a realistic bent. How many of those already exist?

Let's see. Merc, I've played it and the rules don't work at all well. MSPE, great game but not easy to find now. Recon, great game but nothing to support a campaign set in the modern day (same could be said for MSPE actually). Corps, not that well known and again out of date. Millennium's End, very well done but very complex, out of print and again out of date.

Dogs of War is around of course, but isn't aimed at realism.

So, there isn't actually a single in print rpg I can think of covering that genre.

What if I want to run a Hill Street Blues/NYPD Blue/The Shield type game? There's nothing to support that. You might well find some game from 1983 that did it, but how well and is it in print?

So yeah, some genres are very well covered. Fantasy, supers, horror, space opera, Westerns I'd argue too. After that though it's not that great.

Nothing for crime based stuff really, very little left in print for historical gaming, cyberpunk I'd argue is very poorly served, I could go on but the point's there. Some stuff is so well covered that there's little point in looking out new games. That coverage though, while deep, is very narrow.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;493725I was being sarcastic, but sure. This kind of complaint gets made about everything. It's whatchamacallit, "future shock".

I thought it was a funny post on your part (funny in a good way). Before I made the switch to writing mostly non fiction and gaming material, I used to bang my head against a wall dealing with that exact mindset in genre fiction.

A middle aged friend of mine said that her two teenagers were overheard talking exciteldy about music "I've just heard a new band, you've got to listen to them as they're really good - they're called the Beatles".

So, even something really old can seem really new when encountered the first time.

Quote from: Kaldric;493724Some people treat RPGs like support structures for entertainment. They find one that supports their preferred playstyle and use it. Likely customizing it to fit them perfectly.

This is pretty much me. Even when I was buying lots of different RPGs in the 1970s and 1980s, I seldom played them. I just borrowed anything I really liked rules-wise and added it to the rules for one of the games I played.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;493714Apart from new movie games (eg. Babylon 5 RPG, etc), it seems me that many games are merely a slightly-different twist on older, existing games and attempts to create a 'perfect' rule system - which is futile because everyone is different and has their own preference.

But that's exactly the point of so much variation. You answered your question yourself. Everyone is different and has different tastes, hence the amount of different games.

Quote from: D-503;493780I agree with you here, which is why I disagreed with your post in the other thread.

As John Kim says, it's surprising how narrow the genres covered are. If I want fairly mainstream fantasy then sure, there's a vast ocean of games doing it and the chances of a new one bringing something genuinely different to the party are low (though even there I'd argue that The One Ring rpg looks closer to getting Tolkien than anything else ever has).

The other thread though was about a modern day military rpg, with a realistic bent. How many of those already exist?

Let's see. Merc, I've played it and the rules don't work at all well. MSPE, great game but not easy to find now. Recon, great game but nothing to support a campaign set in the modern day (same could be said for MSPE actually). Corps, not that well known and again out of date. Millennium's End, very well done but very complex, out of print and again out of date.

Dogs of War is around of course, but isn't aimed at realism.

So, there isn't actually a single in print rpg I can think of covering that genre.

What if I want to run a Hill Street Blues/NYPD Blue/The Shield type game? There's nothing to support that. You might well find some game from 1983 that did it, but how well and is it in print?

So yeah, some genres are very well covered. Fantasy, supers, horror, space opera, Westerns I'd argue too. After that though it's not that great.

Nothing for crime based stuff really, very little left in print for historical gaming, cyberpunk I'd argue is very poorly served, I could go on but the point's there. Some stuff is so well covered that there's little point in looking out new games. That coverage though, while deep, is very narrow.

I agree with this for the most part, although for some good modern style crime and military games I'd check out Bedrock Brendan's Network games. Still, I agree that even with Bedrock's games, there's not nearly as much system bloat for modern games, and The Company is using a variation of an older system, and doing it in a way that IMO is very awesome. Even small twists, as has been mentioned already, can make good games / systems even better. If I weren't willing to check out new games, how would I ever learn this? Frankly, I don't get the mind-set of not even being willing to explore new games. I outright enjoy reading new games and new approaches to old systems and even completely new systems. Recently acquired and read Silverlion's takes on supers and fantasy (Hearts & Souls and High Valor), and I'm really, really impressed by them. I'd go so far as to say High Valor would be a great system for running Middle Earth, and is very epic in feel to me. I'm very much looking forward to playing it, and I am currently enjoying the privilege of playing two new games, the 2e of Hearts & Souls, and Servants of Gauis (espionage in the Roman Empire), both with their respective authors running them, and both I would be completely missing if I were not eager to explore new games.

Thanks for suggesting Terror Network Sigmund. There are some great modern military games out there if you look around. But I think the combo of modern military and realistic really narrows things down a bit. The truth is it isn't a genre that sells well. I've seen sales numbers by genre and it is way down on the list. Most recent ones I've seen are more over-the top like Dogs of War or Strike Force 7. I've heard MERC is pretty detailed and realistic. Our games are pretty naturalistic but simple.

I know I've seen plenty of stuff pop up for law enforcent rpgs. For a law and order style game you could easily use most of the modern games out there.

Quote from: Aos;493709So is this, in your opinion, true?

For me, I'd have to say no. I've switched out my long term SF and Supers games of preference within the last year with new games that I like much better. (Icons for V&V; SBA for Traveller).

A few years ago I would have been a definite "no".

Now... I think it's more of a "yes" than ever, though not a definite "yes" either, in the sense that individually, for me, there is a very small number of games I'd consider "my go-to games", like AD&D First Ed, Vampire/WoD, Cthulhu/BRP. Beyond that, it becomes more and more like all these games are endless variations on things that could just have been supplements in the first place.

Quote from: David R;493752Brother, I'm constantly finding out new things that interest me even though some of it may be "old".

Quoted for absolute goddamned motherfucking truth.

I am actually fairly new to classics like Runequest, WFRP and Traveller, which didn't get much attention around here back when I started playing RPGs. Even older editions of D&D (OD&D, AD&D 1e) feel fairly "novel" for one who got his start in the heights of AD&D 2e and GURPS 3e.

And I still eagerly follow the new stuff. Savage Worlds and nWoD are big at our game table, and I'm still eager to try out Eclipse Phase.

Using games as supplements, or supplements from other games, is also a favorite of ours. Our Castles & Crusades GM used critters from Glorantha (RQ2 bestiary) and Barsoom (straight out of Adamant's Mars setting book for Savage Worlds) in our game. Even Forgey/storygamey stuff gets used like that; I once used Malcolm Craig's Hot War game as the basis for a one-shot Call of Cthulhu game, with its dystopian, intrigue-laden post-WWIII London as a backdrop for some good old-fashioned Mythos investigative horror.

Those are great times to be a gamer. Regardless of what game you play and like you're bound to find great material for it, with or without a bit of conversion.

Nothing like giving an old game a try if you didn'y play it much when it came out.

Quote from: The Butcher;493846Using games as supplements, or supplements from other games, is also a favorite of ours.

I am really big on this right now. It's a good way to get some use out of those games you may never play otherwise. I've taken a ton of inspiration and advice from the back of CoC d20 for my ICONS game.

Quote from: The Butcher;493846Using games as supplements, or supplements from other games, is also a favorite of ours.

Quote from: Aos;493850I am really big on this right now. It's a good way to get some use out of those games you may never play otherwise. I've taken a ton of inspiration and advice from the back of CoC d20 for my ICONS game.

Change the games' names to "D&D", "Cthulhu", "WoD" and the like, and ditto.

Quote from: soltakss;493789A middle aged friend of mine said that her two teenagers were overheard talking exciteldy about music "I've just heard a new band, you've got to listen to them as they're really good - they're called the Beatles".

So, even something really old can seem really new when encountered the first time.

An excellent point. I didn't get into the Beatles until the 90's and I didn't get into Elvis until after 2005.

Quote from: Aos;493709So is this, in your opinion, true?

Nope.

Speaking as someone who has read, reviewed, and/or played nearly two hundred RPG and STG systems, I keep finding new shit all the time. Sometimes it's just a minor improvement (but which is nevertheless an improvement). Sometimes it's a radical innovation.

In just the last month and a half, Apocalypse World and Technoir have both showed me shit I haven't seen before. Before that it was Vornheim shaking things up.

Now, by the same token, BD is also right when he says (in post #3 of this thread) that most games are just minor variations on a theme. I'm just not sure what that has to do with his previous claim.

Sometimes, even a minor innovation/variation can make a huge difference.

And I picked up Vornheim yesterday for $1.35 on pdf. I'm not all the way through it, but so far it is fascinating. I may have to buy a hard copy.

I'm pretty young, and I love to collect RPGs even if I don't get a chance to actually play half of them. I enjoy picking apart systems, and I'm a sucker for high production values and 'RPG style' literature. I write for a living (in the most boring of all editorial worlds - business writing), so it is fun to enjoy something that's written by different rules to what I put out day after day.

Some of my favourite games have come from taking a random punt. Anima: Beyond Fantasy, for example, is probably my current absolute favourite system. It combines so many different elements in new ways, with an intricate and detailed setting that can be used for so many types of stories... and yet it is incredibly fast in play. A lot of people I know were put off by how 'front loaded' it is in terms of startup stat jiggling, but when you get down to actually playing, we found it blended into the background in a way that very few other games have.

Then there's games I like the theory of but will probably never be able to play - like Mouse Guard or Unhallowed Metropolis. I spend far too much money on game lines when I find something I really like, I dropped something like £300 on Dark Heresy products recently, and I can understand how that price point can keep people from jumping into it... but then I look at my collection and the amount of potential I've already got...

Maybe in another ten or twenty years I'll feel like I've got enough, but I can't remember the last time I went into my FLGS and went away without seeing something I at least wanted to grab because it seemed fresh or exciting.

Seeing as how there's still new stuff coming out all the time, and some of the writers of the OSR have even proved that there's fascinating new directions we can take game design from 35 years ago, I'm going to say "No, and this is stupid" in response to the OP.

What's even more stupid, of course, is the suggestion that because of this imaginary problem that doesn't exist we now have to all play storygames about lab assistants coming to terms with their history of incest or whatever, and start to use pick-up-sticks as a central mechanic. Fuck that. Go light your reichstag fires elsewhere.

The reason that "most games seem to have 3-8 attributes, 24-100 skills and a difficulty-based task resolution" is because THAT'S WHAT RPGS LOOK LIKE.  that's the fundamental skeleton of the RPG structure.  And clearly, we have not yet come even close to drying up the well on the possible variations of that.  So a resounding fuck you to all the Swine who try to pretend that an utterly made-up crisis demands that their games replace RPGs.

RPGPundit

There’s a quote that goes something along the lines of ‘good artists copy, great artists steal’. I’ve seen it attributed to various people, but mainly Picasso. Ironically it seems that this quote was stolen by Picasso from TS Eliot, who said:

Quote“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different."

This applies to rpgs just as much as Eliot’s poetry and Picasso’s artwork. Great, nickable ideas can be found almost anywhere, from D&D through to Apocalypse World. The trick is to take these ideas and use them to make something different.

It's Eliot, writing about Massinger, who wrote on the heels of Shakespeare, Kyd, Marlowe.