Quote from: SeanchaiThis is the first time I've heard of Braunstein. Outside Wikipedia, where can I learn more?

There are several chapters on the history of role-playing in "The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible" by Sean Patrick Fannon.  There's shorter coverage in several places, like Victor Raymond's "A Brief History of Roleplaying Games".  

A lot of people picture the sixties wargames as being essentially boardgames played out of the box.  However, much of the wargaming scene at that time was using homebrewed rules or freeform resolution, with detailed settings carefully researched by the players.  In many multiplayer games, like in free kriegspiel, there was a referee who knew the details of the setting and had created the scenario.  Each player had a character (usually but not always a commander of some forces), and they would tell the referee what they were doing.  

Quote from: J ArcaneThe point remains valid however, regardless of your personal prejudices towards the assertion, that if you set the bar of innovation at the event of inventing roleplaying itself, then basically everything that's come since is going to fall short.  Inventing the toaster, versus inventing the bagel setting.

Quote from: J ArcaneI would also point out that I don't think there's even remotely anything wrong with evolution over revolution, and in fact I tend to prefer it.  I think it's important to remember what's come before and worked well.  With CRPGs for example, I think they would do well to dip back into the well of the games which spawned them more deeply and more often.

Hm.  I do think that D&D was revolutionary, but I think it's empty description to say that it "inventing role-playing".  D&D was different than prior games in a number of ways.  However, people before D&D still played in games where they had a character and told the referee what they were doing, who judged the results and took it into account.  This is the basic method of free kriegspiel.  

Prior games were generally more multi-sided rather than having a united party.  Players had a primary character but they also usually had henchman, hirelings, or followers -- which existed in D&D but were not the norm.  They were usually set in open terrain rather than a dungeon.

D&D invented the roleplaying game as we know it, and as it is played even today.  I don't see how it's "empty description" to assert a known fact.

Yes I'm aware of the existence of freeform wargaming, no I don't think it's similar enough except in that aspects of it produced the inspiration for the more character and advencture focused nature that RPGs present.  

The Braunsteins are interesting as a demonstration of a sort of prototype of what became roleplaying, but I don't believe the existence of proto-forms somehow invalidates the importance of the eventual form and it's contribution.

Quote from: RPGPunditYup, that's precisely what I said; which is why Nobilis is in fact much more similar to a standard RPG than Amber, and isn't really "innovative" in any meaningful way (unless you count "figuring out replacements for dice" as innovation, which I don't).

Well, as far as I can tell, it was the first diceless system designed to provide an objective framework for everything also found in its diced counterparts, without relying on the good judgment of the GM... But yes, I've maintained all along that Nobilis is very much a traditional RPG at heart.

The Braunsteins primary historical significance was not back in the 60s, it was in these last few years when it was adopted by people utterly absolutely desperate to try to give credit for the RPG to ANYONE other than Gygax and Arneson.

Its petty historical revisionism and sour grapes of the worst kind.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimA lot of people picture the sixties wargames as being essentially boardgames played out of the box.  However, much of the wargaming scene at that time was using homebrewed rules or freeform resolution, with detailed settings carefully researched by the players.  In many multiplayer games, like in free kriegspiel, there was a referee who knew the details of the setting and had created the scenario.  Each player had a character (usually but not always a commander of some forces), and they would tell the referee what they were doing.

One thing to remember, though, is that these wargames (what Americans usually refer to as miniatures games, in contrast to board wargames featuring cardboard counters and hexes) were generally team affairs, going back to Kriegspiel. They weren't N-sided. The innovation of Braunstein was that Weseley drew in concepts from game theory and thinktank political science exercises, so that the game now emphasized individual objectives in a multisided conflict. (Diplomacy, published in 1959, might also have contributed. I don't know if Weseley has ever mentioned it as an influence, though.)

QuoteHm.  I do think that D&D was revolutionary, but I think it's empty description to say that it "inventing role-playing".  D&D was different than prior games in a number of ways.  However, people before D&D still played in games where they had a character and told the referee what they were doing, who judged the results and took it into account.  This is the basic method of free kriegspiel.

Again I would like to inject some nuance here. I have a pre-WWI US Army "wargame" manual (Sayre, Map Maneuvers and Tactical Rides) which includes an "example of play" dialogue between a referee and a player acting as the commander of a small unit. It might as well be a solo adventure. But Braunstein introduced a new factor, the multi-sided game. While earlier skirmish wargames or "map maneuvers" generated player-character identification in the form of having each player control one character, that control was still in the service of group aims. Braunstein added the idea of each player being in charge of the independent aims of a character.

QuotePrior games were generally more multi-sided rather than having a united party.  Players had a primary character but they also usually had henchman, hirelings, or followers -- which existed in D&D but were not the norm.  They were usually set in open terrain rather than a dungeon.

Do you have references for this, or more information? Are you talking about Braunsteins specifically or something more like various players' "kingdoms" in the Castles and Crusades Society? (There's an allusion to what you might be talking about here, where Arneson is quoted re:Weseley giving players individual objectives in a medieval miniatures game.)

(In response to J Arcane and Pundit...)

OK, let me check what we're saying here.  

Position 1 seems to be that the only people to ever innovate in the history of the hobby were Gygax and Arneson.  

If I disagree with that, then I'm just having sour grapes and trying desperately to bash them?  It seems like the bar is set a little oddly.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe Braunsteins primary historical significance was not back in the 60s, it was in these last few years when it was adopted by people utterly absolutely desperate to try to give credit for the RPG to ANYONE other than Gygax and Arneson.

Its petty historical revisionism and sour grapes of the worst kind.

That's kind of silly, since Arneson himself credits Weseley and the Braunstein as the genesis of what became D&D. And the Braunstein is extremely useful to show that "GM-steered" plots and viewing RPGs in terms of "stories" were a Johnny-come-lately in the development of "traditional RPGs"--as I wrote in another thread, they're basically a clumsy repurposing of inherited tools, and as such it's no wonder they've caused a lot of trouble.

Though I have to say I'm really not clear on what J Arcane and JHKim are arguing about.

Quote from: jhkim(In response to J Arcane and Pundit...)
 
OK, let me check what we're saying here.
 
Position 1 seems to be that the only people to ever innovate in the history of the hobby were Gygax and Arneson.

Furthermore, any game that does contain innovation, is not really an RPG.

Quote from: jhkim(In response to J Arcane and Pundit...)

OK, let me check what we're saying here.  

Position 1 seems to be that the only people to ever innovate in the history of the hobby were Gygax and Arneson.  

If I disagree with that, then I'm just having sour grapes and trying desperately to bash them?  It seems like the bar is set a little oddly.

I thought I'd made myself pretty clear, but caritably assuming you really don't understand and aren't just being obtuse, I will try to break it down for the third time now.

If we set the bar of what constitutes innovation at the revolutionary, then we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that the creation of roleplaying itself in the form of D&D is itself the most significant innovation in this hobby's history.

Furthermore, the developments that have come since, are no where near as major as they're being portrayed as, especialyl when compared to the originating event that spawned the hobby, being by and large variations in form, theme and mechanics built on the same core.

This is further proved by a lack of concrete, objective improvements to the form.  As technology, roleplaying games have diversified in terms of their capability, but no new forms have presented themselves that are objectively better than prior approaches.  Some of them have fallen by the wayside of popular taste, such as resolution charts like those found in games like DC Heroes or Gamma World 3rd for example, but they remain as viable and effective a solution as those that have come since, and have their own advantages and disadvantages.  

I can further see no instances of true obsolescence in the RPG world, in the sense of a new form or version of the hobby regarded as universally superior to the previous form.

I therefore conclude that what we see are nothing more than relatively minor variations on the same basic concept, subject more to the tastes of the individual players and creators to which they are designed to appeal, being as they are not a measurable and objective improvement on what has come before.  

I would also state that yes, D&D "invented roleplaying" as we know it.  It may have had inspiration from older proto-forms, and I've acknowledged that repeatedly, but I don't think that those proto-forms necessarily nullify the importance of D&D itself, anymore than the cave paintings at Lascaux somehow cheapen the art of the Rennaissance.  

The Braunsteins didn't create a millions of players across the globe.  Clearly, there was an accomplishment made with the creation of D&D that resonated with a wide variety of people in a way that those earlier proto-forms did not.

Nor do I see how this is the hugely controversial statement you insist on making it out to be.

You know, I agree that nothing that even vaguely resembles an RPG has been as big a leap from D&D as D&D was from its forebears. IMO the difference between D&D and various protoforms like Braunstein is moot. Reading the article John linked above, as well as other accounts, it's clear that the path to D&D was a somewhat incremental one; nevertheless the amount of innovation going from miniatures wargame via Braunstein to D&D is a bigger leap, over the course of maybe 6-7 years, than going from D&D to any later RPG, or RPG-like activity, in the subsequent 34 years.

But I don't see why the bar is being set so high. If you'll pardon the technological analogy, the invention of writing was the only significant development in the history of information technology, everything else is mere details.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou know, I agree that nothing that even vaguely resembles an RPG has been as big a leap from D&D as D&D was from its forebears. IMO the difference between D&D and various protoforms like Braunstein is moot. Reading the article John linked above, as well as other accounts, it's clear that the path to D&D was a somewhat incremental one; nevertheless the amount of innovation going from miniatures wargame via Braunstein to D&D is a bigger leap, over the course of maybe 6-7 years, than going from D&D to any later RPG, or RPG-like activity, in the subsequent 34 years.

But I don't see why the bar is being set so high. If you'll pardon the technological analogy, the invention of writing was the only significant development in the history of information technology, everything else is mere details.

Because the terminology "innovation" is one with certain value-laden implications that are inappropriate for discussing matters of individual taste.

The term often carries with it the implication of "new and improved", and I don't think anything that's come since the introduction of RPGs themselves is necessarily "improved" over anything else.  

It is a subjective medium, and as such, "improvement" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, and is thus a loaded term destined to spark controversy, and "innovation" hold the danger of similar problems due to it's frequent association with the concept of "new and improved".

Therefore it is best to leave it to a situation where it is still useful as a valueless term.

Your example of writing is flawed, and suggests you don't really understand what I'm getting at.  A more accurate analogy would be the invention of literature, a much more subjective thing, in which even now, there are still those who read and admire literarature from thousands of years in the past.  No form of literature is necessarily objectively superior to the other, it is only a matter of the myriad rovings and subdivisions formed by various creators and critics over the years.

If innovation = more fun, then I think there's been a ton of innovation over the years. Across the board, RPGs and games of all types are more fun now than they were 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

The thing is, I think that there's an underlying desire for innovation to be this big, groundbreaking thing. I'm not sure that's really possible without inventing a new type of game.

I think a long period of refinement and improvement is useful for end users, but it might not be as exciting for creators and heavily invested fans.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf we set the bar of what constitutes innovation at the revolutionary, then we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that the creation of roleplaying itself in the form of D&D is itself the most significant innovation in this hobby's history.

No offence, but while I agree with what you are saying it is a stupid argument to make.  It basically amounts to the argument that nothing in a field of study is as revolutionary as the creation of the field itself.  Ummm... duh?
 
You're setting the bar pointlessly high.

Quote from: mearlsThe thing is, I think that there's an underlying desire for innovation to be this big, groundbreaking thing. I'm not sure that's really possible without inventing a new type of game.

I wish more people had this perspective but, the truth is, everybody wants to be the man or woman who reinvented/revolutionized/saved the hobby and egos don't let this more rational perspective prevail on a regular basis.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkFurthermore, any game that does contain innovation, is not really an RPG.

Let's set this stupidity aside for a moment, which could be applied to any area, so that for example we'd have to say we've seen no innovations in cars, planes, or computers, because if it were truly innovative then they wouldn't be cars, planes or computers anymore. Therefore I may as well drive a T-Model Ford, fly the Wright brothers' plane and use a TRS-80. Anything since then is just a variation on those, and the originals are the best, others since then are just try-hard losers. Let's set aside this absurdity. We'll rephrase your question,

what have been the big innovations in gaming over, say, the past 10 years? I mean in terms of games themselves, such as style, writing, mechanics and so forth, rather than business models

into

what have been the big innovations in gaming over, say, the past 10 years? Innovation within the bounds of remaining an rpg. I mean in terms of games themselves, such as style, writing, mechanics and so forth, rather than business models

Okay, now we've defined "innovation" in the way it was intended, and the way it's understood in common everyday English. So, what have been some innovative game mechanics in the last decade?

Notice here also that you've mentioned style and writing, while everyone has focused on game mechanics. So for example an rpg which was written entirely "in-character" for that game world, not "breaking the fourth wall" would be innovative in terms of style and writing, since rgs are usually written as rule books with the authour admitting the rules are an abstraction.

I'm sure some rpg must have been written like that?

I'd post the list of the last decade for consideration, but from 1997-2006 there were 426 first editions of games in English in print, so...