Kyle, your example is pretty asinine, as again that is not an innovation.  Instead, we should be talking about the real innovations that have been made over the last 30 years or so, in things like format and layout of RPG books.

One example is with chapter structure.  I can tell now, when I look at older books or books that have not followed WoTC's example in structuring game books clearly and plainly, that there is was a serious improvement that went on at some point in the formatting of RPGs.

Look at books from the 70s, 80s, or 90s, and you'll find that in many of these the rules are slapdash all over the book, so that often you'll get rules on combat before everything about character creation is covered, or even stats or game terms being used before its ever explained what those are or how to use them.

Its notable that one of the most revolutionary things WoTC did wasn't so much D20 as it was dragging the rest of the industry into compliance as far as the best format in which to write out an RPG, roughly fitting into: abilities/race/class/skills/feats/misc/equipment/combat/magic/otherstuff/
setting stuff/monsters/INDEX. (that last one being another radical change for many).

When you look at a game like WFRP 2e, you see that influence very present there, as the format is done in that style.

If you have gotten used to the ease of that format it makes it very difficult to go back to something like Pendragon 5e's format, which is all over the fucking board. The chapter locations often make no sense, I have to go on wild goose chases to find some rule or bit of info.

So there's a real innovation in RPGs: the standard "WoTC" format.

RPGPundit

I'd agree with Qoltar too that both the LARP as springboarded off from tabletop RPGs (though obviously there were live "role playing" type organizations BEFORE RPGs), and DEFINITELY the idea of "open source gaming" where two very big innovations in the RPG hobby. Of course the former actually resulted in the creation of a new hobby.

In a related sense, the rise of computer RPGs was a huge innovation, and MUDs /MMORPGs.

RPGPundit

Pundit - on your forum I spell the moniker  with the letter "K" , but the slip-up is totally understandable and made me smile.

 By way of comparison....how many 'innovations" have there been in these games  in the past 30 or 40 years :

 CHESS ?

 Monopoly ?

RISK ?

 Parchesi ?

POKER   ?

For what its worth, I think that SJG is more consistent with putting indexes in their books AND Bibliographies even. But if its really WOTC that started that - then thats cool. I just remember happening earlier with SJG.


On topic : Why is the idea of innovation in RPGs such a big deal ?
 If the players are having fun - do people really need a major innovation ?

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarBy way of comparison....how many 'innovations" have there been in these games  in the past 30 or 40 years :

 CHESS ?

 Monopoly ?

RISK ?

 Parchesi ?

POKER   ?

Chess is thousands of years old. I doubt we'll see any more innovation there. That said, when did speed chess become popular?

Monopoly is far less complex than your typical RPG, much narrower in focus, and is controlled by a single corporation, but according to wikipedia there were several different monopoly-like games competing with each other in the first 30 years of the concept's existence.

Risk: There's a game that needs some serious innovation.

Parchesi. I know jack about Parcheesi.

Poker. There have been many variations of poker (a very old game for which one wouldn't expect much innovation these days). Texas Hold Em is a wildly popular innovation and was introduced to Vegas in 1967 according to wikipedia.[/quote]

QuoteOn topic : Why is the idea of innovation in RPGs such a big deal ?
 If the players are having fun - do people really need a major innovation ?

I'm sure a Model T was a blast to drive (and probably still is), but I like driving my modern 227hp four door air conditioned waterproof airbag-having all-wheel drive 25mpg car much better. (I am NOT saying D&D is a Model T!)

Though I could certainly get to the same destination with D&D, the games I play now enable ME to have fun more quickly, more clearly, more consistently, with less work, and with a style that's more suited to my tastes than AD&D did in 1984. That's pretty important to me.

Tim

Chess variants get invented all the time.

Most of those games have undergone some sort of change or development since their inception, or variant rules and games have "budded" off them.

Quote from: KoltarFor what its worth, I think that SJG is more consistent with putting indexes in their books AND Bibliographies even. But if its really WOTC that started that - then thats cool. I just remember happening earlier with SJG.

no no, I didn't mean to suggest that was something Wizards invented or anything... just that it got really standardized with the advent of D20.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TimI'm sure a Model T was a blast to drive (and probably still is), but I like driving my modern 227hp four door air conditioned waterproof airbag-having all-wheel drive 25mpg car much better. (I am NOT saying D&D is a Model T!)

Though I could certainly get to the same destination with D&D, the games I play now enable ME to have fun more quickly, more clearly, more consistently, with less work, and with a style that's more suited to my tastes than AD&D did in 1984. That's pretty important to me.

Tim

Please show me a game that is OBJECTIVELY a Ferrari to D&D's "model T", system wise.

I'd agree that in terms of writing, formatting, etc we're light years ahead of that old beige box.  But in terms of actual game system, we've barely changed at all, in any meaningful way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: KoltarBy way of comparison....how many 'innovations" have there been in these games in the past 30 or 40 years :
 
CHESS ?
 
Monopoly ?
 
RISK ?
 
Parchesi ?
 
POKER ?

Your analogy is flawed.  A more appropriate question would be to ask how many innovations have we seen in board games?  Chess hasn't really changed (short of the occasional interesting variation)... but board games in general have.  Absolutely.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's a pretty wild statement; but before I go off all half-cocked, could you please tell me WHY you think they're more fun?  I suspect when you think about it that the reason will have far less to do with actual RULES as it will with format and structure.

Note that this includes the idea of having a single-resolution mechanic. This is a STRUCTURAL change, not a rules innovation, in the same way that making different pieces of software more compatible with each other is a structural change, not a change in how any given piece of software in and of itself functions.

I'll focus on D&D and offer the following. I'm planting my rule v. structure flag on the line of philosophy. If the thinking behind how to design the game changed, then that's a major rule change. So, reversing AC is a simple change in structure, but creating a level system for monsters in parallel to PCs is a rule change.

* Exceptions Based Mechanics for Everyone: It's more fun to play a fighter with Power Attack and Cleave than a fighter from an earlier edition. Feats give everyone special abilities. Before, only spellcasters sort of kinda got them.

* Challenge Rating System: It's easier than ever for a DM to create balanced encounters on the fly. It doesn't work perfectly (for reasons I still don't understand, the 3e designers never tried to standardized monster progression of AC/hp/attacks/damage by CR, instead opting to create HD-driven pseudo-character classes) but it's way ahead of everything else.

* Standardized Treasure: Another half-realized improvement, but 3e took a step toward making it clear what kind of magic items a PC should have at a given level. As with CR, these new mechanics added more order and predictability to the system, though they undercut themselves by breaking down at higher levels.

* Per Encounter Resources: With the warlock and material from Nine Swords, D&D creates its own mechanical, narrative framework, rather than relying on daily powers or other frameworks driven by fiction.

* Use Driven Skill System: I think this is an easy one to overlook, but 3e is the first D&D skill system driven by "What do the characters need to do?" rather than "Let's list everything that someone could do."

* Standardized Rules for Miniatures Play: This is another easily overlooked shift in thinking. Other versions of D&D sort of supported miniatures, 3e embraced them. I think this is important because it ties into the idea of building a game driven by what the end users were doing with the game and what they wanted to do with the game.

* Encounter Traps (Dungeonscape; Secrets of Xen'drick): IMNSHO this is the most overlooked advancement in D&D. Basically, these rules turn traps into complete encounters. This is much more than structure, but a completely new approach to non-combat encounters that could yield very interesting results if applied to other areas.

IMHO, RPG design has taken huge steps forward since 2000. The focus is increasingly on the realities of what people do with game texts, how they play the game, and the best ways to support that. We had a perfect storm of TCGs and German-style boardgames that showed the values of good game design. That push is seeping into RPGs. It's even working its way into videogames. Even stodgy old wargames are getting a shot in the arm.

I think the 80s saw an obsession with "realism". The 90s were obsessed with story. Finally, 30 years on, we're obsessed with making fun games. As a collective whole, game designers at the leading edge have stopped making excuses for shitty game design. You can't wave your hands around and claim realism or pretensions to story as justifications for why your mechanics are all fucked up. It simply no longer flies.

Quote from: RPGPunditno no, I didn't mean to suggest that was something Wizards invented or anything... just that it got really standardized with the advent of D20.

RPGPundit

 Yeah - I'll give you that one. Since 2000 and the whole D20 thing they have gotten better about that.
 STILL, I have customers in the store that wish that WotC did indexes with ALL their books not just certain ones and that the detail in the indexes was better.

- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease show me a game that is OBJECTIVELY a Ferrari to D&D's "model T", system wise.

I was actually just describing a Subaru, but I tell you what: you point out one single objective person in this entire forum and I'll get right on that.

Wow, Mike, I have to say almost everything you listed counts as stuff I can't stand about D&D 3e, most of them I find useless, and none of them do anything to enhance my own fun.

Challenge Rating is worthless and makes the game bland.
Feats are messed up disasters that lead to cop-out "character builds" and unbalancing powergaming.
Standardized treasure is boring.
Forcing us to use miniatures is a cheap commercial ploy that is certainly a lot of fun to the miniatures-salesmen out there (like WoTC) but pretty well sucks ass for the rest of us.

I wouldn't see any of those things as "innovations", I see them as annoyances that make my play of the current edition of D&D that much harder.

You know what WAS an innovation from 3.x? The OGL; network externalities, the easy-to-find structure of the book formats, and the idea of the single resolution-system.

All that stuff you pointed out, on the other hand?
Purely aesthetic-ideological preference. And not really "innovation". Its still D&D. It just makes D&D less Gonzo and free, and more predictable and "balanced".  If having predictable encounters with predictable treasures and predictable traps makes your game more fun for you, (oh yes, and if you want to spend a couple of hundred dollars on D&D miniatures to support the combat system that demands it) then you'll like it.  
If that sort of thing bores you to the point that you want to shove a spike into your fucking head rather than have to play that way, its not an "innovation" at all.

RPGPundit

Quote from: mearls* Exceptions Based Mechanics for Everyone: It's more fun to play a fighter with Power Attack and Cleave than a fighter from an earlier edition. Feats give everyone special abilities. Before, only spellcasters sort of kinda got them.

Ignore Pundy. Feats rock. Even (maybe especially) when they have the potential to be totally broken. Broken in the right ways, mind you... some things (infinite hp cleric combos I've seen in M:tG, for example) are just annoying.

Quote* Challenge Rating System: It's easier than ever for a DM to create balanced encounters on the fly. It doesn't work perfectly (for reasons I still don't understand, the 3e designers never tried to standardized monster progression of AC/hp/attacks/damage by CR, instead opting to create HD-driven pseudo-character classes) but it's way ahead of everything else.

I'd call these rules a good start, if anything. There needs to be more advice on throwing disproportionate challenges at the PCs. Mooks are covered well enough. BBEGs not as well, at least not nearby.

Quote* Standardized Treasure: Another half-realized improvement, but 3e took a step toward making it clear what kind of magic items a PC should have at a given level. As with CR, these new mechanics added more order and predictability to the system, though they undercut themselves by breaking down at higher levels.

I've heard there was some wonkiness in previous editions concerning treasure. I have to say, crazy unique magic items from previous editions I've seen talked about fondly. Gold as an advancement mechanic, conversely, rubs me the wrong way. Especially when making high (hell, even low-mid) level characters.

Quote* Per Encounter Resources: With the warlock and material from Nine Swords, D&D creates its own mechanical, narrative framework, rather than relying on daily powers or other frameworks driven by fiction.

Loved psionic feats for a similar reason. The focus thing was just gold, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote* Use Driven Skill System: I think this is an easy one to overlook, but 3e is the first D&D skill system driven by "What do the characters need to do?" rather than "Let's list everything that someone could do."

But I want to max out my ranks in Craft (Baked Goods)! Nah... Although I still have no idea what the hell Knowledge (Dungeoneering) is supposed to represent. Or where you'd learn that stuff.

Quote* Standardized Rules for Miniatures Play: This is another easily overlooked shift in thinking. Other versions of D&D sort of supported miniatures, 3e embraced them. I think this is important because it ties into the idea of building a game driven by what the end users were doing with the game and what they wanted to do with the game.

I had fun with minis when they were available. Used graph paper and mechanical pencils when they weren't. I managed the latter for an eight-player melee slaughterfest. No complaints.
Also, "standardized" ...as opposed to what?

Quote* Encounter Traps (Dungeonscape; Secrets of Xen'drick): IMNSHO this is the most overlooked advancement in D&D. Basically, these rules turn traps into complete encounters. This is much more than structure, but a completely new approach to non-combat encounters that could yield very interesting results if applied to other areas.

Haven't seen dungeonscape, but I'm getting an "Indiana Jones" or "Tomb Raider" vibe from the concept.


What counts as an innovation? Who cares? Do what works. If you need something that don't exist, make it up and share it. But if it ain't broke...

Quote from: mearls* Encounter Traps (Dungeonscape; Secrets of Xen'drick): IMNSHO this is the most overlooked advancement in D&D. Basically, these rules turn traps into complete encounters. This is much more than structure, but a completely new approach to non-combat encounters that could yield very interesting results if applied to other areas.

I completely agree on most other points, but traps were "encounters" long before that. Not the over-used poision needle, but if you look at Grimtooth-like mechanisms, you'd usually spend quite some time with one of those traps.

Having said that, I don't own Dungeonscape, so maybe rules-wise there's something new in there. I already own a decent dungeon book by a well-known author, and the Factotum and Wall Bashing comments I read didn't get my expectations too high.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNotice 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?

Does Castle Falkenstein by Mike Pondsmith and "Tom Olam" count?