TheRPGSite

Apparently this (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3486006&postcount=39) post over on EN World represented the height of swinery.  I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps the claim that indie rpgs were responsible for a lot of advances in the industry?  As far as I can tell, indie games have done almost nothing to actually advance the industry, simply because their market share is so small.  But that doesn't mean they haven't been responsible for some fantastic innovations.
 
Or have they?
 
This got me wondering... 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 (thus excluding probably the biggest "innovation" in the hobby, the advent of the OGL).  I want this to be completely distinct from popularity and influence, because obviously a game can be highly innovative but for business reasons not necessarily a big seller.
 
So what are they?

Can't help you there, TF. I'm the dense sort and wouldn't know innovation if it sat on my forehead. All I know is I ain't got any.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceCan't help you there, TF. I'm the dense sort and wouldn't know innovation if it sat on my forehead.

If innovation sat on my head, I'll recognize her instantly :D

(Slight derail. Is innovation even welcome in gaming?)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RIf innovation sat on my head, I'll recognize her instantly :D

(Slight derail. Is innovation even welcome in gaming?)

Regards,
David R

If I *did* recognize her, I'd deny it - my wife would kill me... :D

-clash

John Kim has written both on live journal and at his darkshire site about innovation and design trends over the years...but I'm in a rush so I can't provide links.

A lot of "innovations" are either reintroducing things that fell out of fashion a long time ago, or writing down things that it seems a lot of people took for granted but never codified. Some others are simply disseminating concepts that were invented earlier but never got a lot of attention. So in discussions of this sort you run into arguments over originality and credit. I think it's more useful to be aware of the issue than to let it sidetrack discussion. E.g., okay Apple copied a lot of ideas for the Mac interface from Xerox Parc, and maybe those ideas would have made their way into personal computers anyway, but the Mac still marks the breakout of GUIs and mice into the broad consumer PC market.

Heh. I still think of dice pools as innovative, but the idea is probably 20 years old...this decade? Drawing a blank, but indeed it's not something I really look for.

TheShadow

People seem, in the past few years, to have become more aware of the idea of look at system as forming and influencing the act of players telling the story instead of (or as well as) looking at it as forming and influencing the outcomes in the context of the fictional world and its rules.  It's a different viewpoint that lets people tackle some old problems quite easily, while creating a whole mess of new problems that never occurred in the previous type of system.

There's a lot more awareness of reward systems, and particularly experimentation with rewards given by one player to another player.  That one hasn't shaken out yet, because there's just so damn much ground, but it's found its way into some interesting games (with Primetime Adventures being, perhaps, the most well-known in this regard).

Well, I think bennies and num nums are fairly new.  If you don't consider them to be a strictly metagame version of hero points.

A few concepts in the GURPS 4e character creation strike me as fairly innovative.  The Cosmic enhancement in particular, a stackable trump card mechanism is such a no brainer in hind sight I'm amazed I've never seen it before.  Another one that wowed me is the disassemblable attributes.  Very neat.

Super focused games like DitV are also pretty new, even Pendragon didn't automatically make you a christian knight with divine favour and infallibility.

Setting wise, we've seen a number of games that went to entirely new places, like Low Life for Savage Worlds and the Snakes on a Plane RPG.

first, let´s get a little Schumpeter.
Then add some needed clarification:

1) basic innovation
2) procedural innovation
3) pseudo-innovation

Afterwards, let talks ensue.

Speaking of pseudo-innovation, I'm working on lots of shitty, single-premise games that I'm totally gonna release in *.pdf as "ashcan" special editions!

;)

I think Burning Empires' scene management mechanics are really innovative. I'm trying to get a game together to see how they'll actually work in play. I'm hoping that the mechanics will support a more diffuse kind of play, with PCs able to maintain independent goals within a larger formalised framework than the traditional adventuring party. I don't know if they will though, until I get the game going.

Further back, I think Mage: the Ascension's minimal-limits magic system was really innovative. Until then, most folks were basically doing some sort of spell-based system involving resource management. I think it was pretty cool to get away from that into a toolkit approach and I think it worked out pretty well in play and has been somewhat influential (it seems to be a small influence on the Riddle of Steel and Iron Heroes systems, amongst others).

Also, D&D and the OGL was pretty innovative. No one's really mentioned that.

The only real MECHANICAL innovation ever made to the RPG was Amber's truly diceless strategic-competitive play, and that was a one-shot (no other game has really followed in its footsteps; a few of them pretended to but always fucked it up by trying to get some kind of a replacement for the roll of dice, whether it was some gimmick or some kind of beancounting).

Every other RPG ever has, when it comes down to it, just been variations on D&D.


The place where REAL innovations have happened are in presentation; things like layout, formatting, and in metaconcepts like single-mechanic resolution systems.

Most of the shit the forge has claimed to come up with have been either mental masturbation, pointing out the obvious that people have been doing since gaming began and claiming its "innovative" because you gave it a fucking label, or gimmicky nonsense (jenga or tiddlywinks as a game mechanic, anyone?).

RPGPundit

Here's one innovation that I was actually thinking of putting into an RPG before I got totally sidetracked: a diceless system that isn't just a variation on a dick-size competition (compare, biggest wins) and isn't just running a piggy-bank for magical powers (Nobilis).

I mean, chess isn't diceless and we don't think that motherfucker's a "rules-light" game with no real tactical heft.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAlso, D&D and the OGL was pretty innovative. No one's really mentioned that.

Except for me.  In the original post.  Where I specifically excluded the OGL as it is more of a business model than a game mechanic.:rolleyes:

Quote from: Tyberious FunkExcept for me.  In the original post.  Where I specifically excluded the OGL as it is more of a business model than a game mechanic.:rolleyes:

Whoops, wasn't paying attention.

Quote from: RPGPunditEvery other RPG ever has, when it comes down to it, just been variations on D&D.

Really? There are 412 different English-language first editions (not including D&D and Chainmail) going by John Kim's list) just up till 1994... The first 100 rpgs published were,

(1971) Chainmail -
(1973) Dungeons and Dragons -
(1975) Tunnels and Trolls -
(1975) En Garde -
(1975) Empire of the Petal Throne -
(1975) Boot Hill -
(1975) The Complete Warlock -
(1976) Uuhraah! -
(1976) Bunnies and Burrows -
(1976) Starfaring -
(1976) Metamorphosis Alpha: Fantastic Role-Playing Game -
(1976) Monsters! Monsters! -
(1976) Knights of the Round Table -
(1977) Bifrost -     Volume 1: Faerie ed (1977) L.W.Felstead Ltd
(1977) Chivalry and Sorcery - 1st ed
(1977) Traveller -     1st ed by Marc Miller (1977) GDW
(1977) The Fantasy Trip -     Melee ed by Steve Jackson, Howard Thomson (1977) Metagaming
(1977) Superhero 2044 -     1st ed by Donald Saxman (1977) Gamescience
(1977) Flash Gordon and the Warriors of Mongo -     1st ed by Lin Carter, Scott Bizar (1977) FGU
(1977) Dungeons and Dragons -     Basic Set 1st ed ed by J. Eric Holmes (1977)
(1977) Space Quest -     1st ed by Paul Hume, George Nyhen (1977) Tyr Gamemakers Ltd
(1977) Star Patrol -     Space Patrol ed by Michael Scott Kurtick, Rockland Russo (1977) Gamescience
(1978) Adventures in Fantasy -     1st ed by Dave Arneson, Richard Snider (1978) Excalibre Games Inc.
(1978) Dungeons and Dragons,  Advanced -     1st ed by Gary Gygax (1978) TSR
(1978) Starships and Spacemen -     1st ed by Leonard H. Kanterman (1978) FGU
(1978) The Complete Warlock -     1st ed by Robert Cowan, Dave Clark, Kenneth M. Dahl, Nick Smith (1978) Balboa, Inc.
(1978) Simian Combat -     1st ed by Marshall Rose, Norman Knight (1978) Avant-Garde Simulations Perspetives
(1978) The Infinity System -     1st ed by Derrick Charbonnet, Terry Podgorski (1978) Threshold Games
(1978) John Carter, Warlord of Mars -     1st ed by M. S. Matheny (1978) Heritage Models
(1978) Legacy -     1st ed by David A. Feldt (1978) Legacy Press
(1978) High Fantasy -     1st ed by Jeffrey C. Dillow (1978) Fantasy Productions Inc.
(1978) Age of Chivalry -     1st ed by Marshall Rose (1978) Avant-Garde Simulations Perspectives
(1978) Gamma World -     1st ed by James M. Ward, Gary Jaquet (1978) TSR
(1978) Once Upon a Time in the West -     1st ed by Beck, Spencer (1978) Tabletop Games
(1978) What Price Glory?! -     1st ed by John Dankert, Jim Lauffenburger (1978) self-published
(1978) RuneQuest -     1st ed by Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren James, Greg Stafford (1978) Chaosium
(1978) Star Trek: Adventure Gaming in the Final Frontier -     1st ed by Michael Scott (1978) Heritage Models
(1978) Realm of Yolmi -     1st ed by Ken Black, Marshall Rose (1978) Avant-Garde Simulations Perspectives
(1979) Buccaneer -     1st ed by Carl Smith (1979) Adversary Games
(1979) Heroes -     1st ed by Dave Millard (1979) Tabletop Games
(1979) Mortal Combat -     1st ed by David John Morris, Steve Foster, Andrew Murdin (1979) Waynflett House Ltd (UK)
(1979) Commando -     1st ed by Eric Goldberg, Greg Costikyan, John Butterfield (1979) SPI
(1979) Ysgarth -     1st ed by David Nalle (1979) Ragnarok Press
(1979) Villians and Vigilantes -     1st ed by Jeff Dee, Jack Herman (1979) FGU
(1979) Crimson Cutlass -     1st ed by George Rahm, Joseph Hilmer (1979) Better Games
(1979) Gangster! -     1st ed by Nick Marinacci, Pete Petrone (1979) FGU
(1980) Knights and Magic -     1st ed by Arnold Hendrick (1980) Heritage Models
(1980) The Archaereon Game System -     Mage ed by Wilf K. Backhaus (1980) Archaereon Games Ltd.
(1980) Supergame -     1st ed by Jay Hartlove, Aimee Karklyn (1980) DAG Productions
(1980) Skull and Crossbones -     1st ed by Gerald D. Seypura, Anthony LeBoutillier (1980) FGU
(1980) Laserburn -     1st ed by Bryan Ansell, Richard Halliwell, Tony Ackland (1980) Tabletop Games
(1980) Land of the Rising Sun -     1st ed by Lee Gold (1980) FGU
(1980) Star Patrol -     1st ed (1980)
(1980) Rolemaster -     1st ed by S. Coleman Charlton, Peter C. Fenlon, Kurt H. Fischer, Terry K. Amthor (1980) Iron Crown Enterprises
(1980) Bushido -     1st ed by Paul Hume, Bob Charrette (1980) Tyr / Phoenix Games
(1980) Basic Role-Playing -     1st ed by Greg Stafford, Lynn Willis (1980) Chaosium
(1980) Castle Perilous -     1st ed by James T. Sheldon (1980) West Wind Simulations
(1980) Acquitane -     1st ed by Carl Smith (1980) Adversary Games
(1980) Beasts, Men, & Gods -     1st ed by Bill Underwood (1980) Imagination Unlimited Imagination Unlimited The Game Masters
(1980) The Atlantean Trilogy: The Arcanum, The Lexicon, The Bestiary -     1st ed by Stephan Michael Sechi, Vernie Taylor (1980) Bard Games
(1980) The Morrow Project -     1st ed by Kevin Dockery, Robert Sadler, Richard Tucholka (1980) Timeline, Inc.
(1980) Melanda: Land of Mystery -     1st ed by Lee McCormick, John Corradin (1980) Wilmark Dynasty
(1980) Dragonquest -     1st ed by Eric Goldberg, David James Ritchie, Edward J. Woods (1980) SPI
(1980) Dallas -     1st ed by James F. Dunnigan (1980) SPI
(1980) The Hammer of Thor: The Game of Norse Mythology -     1st ed by Joe Angiolillo (1980) Gameshop
(1980) KABAL -     1st ed by Ernest T. Hams (1980) Kabal Gaming Systems
(1980) Space Opera -     1st ed by Ed Simbalist, A. Mark Ratner, Phil McGregor (1980) FGU
(1980) Odysseus -     1st ed by Marshall Rose (1980) FGU
(1980) Top Secret -     1st ed by Merle M. Rasmussen (1980) TSR
(1981) Fringeworthy -     1st ed by Richard Tucholka (1981) Tri-Tac Games
(1981) Wizard's Realm -     1st ed by Niels Erickson, C. Polite, W.G. Murphy (1981) Mystic Swamp
(1981) Star Rovers -     1st ed by Stocken, Hoffman, Hoffman, Hargrave, Huey, Lortz (1981) Archive Miniatures and Game Systems
(1981) Champions -     1st ed by George MacDonald, Steve Peterson (1981) Hero Games
(1981) Aftermath -     1st ed by Bob Charrette, Paul Hume (1981) FGU
(1981) Crimefighters -     1st ed by David "Zeb" Cook (1981) TSR
(1981) Spawn of Fashan -     1st ed by Kirby Lee Davis (1981) Games of Fashan
(1981) The Official Superhero Adventure Game -     1st ed by Brian Phillips (1981) self-published
(1981) Weapons and Warriors -     1st ed by Robert Alan Beatty (1981) self-published
(1981) Arduin Adventure -     1st ed by David A. Hargrave (1981) Grimoire Games
(1981) Wild West -     1st ed by Anthony P. LeBoutillier, Gerald D. Seypura (1981) FGU
(1981) Stormbringer -     1st ed by Ken St. Andre, Steve Perrin (1981) Chaosium
(1981) The Mechanoid Invasion -     1st ed by Kevin Siembieda (1981) Palladium Books
(1981) Spacefarers: Rules for Science Fiction Skirmish Adventures -     1st ed by Bryan Ansell, Richard Halliwell, Tony Ackland, Richard Priestly (1981) Games Workshop
(1981) Call of Cthulhu -     1st ed by Sandy Petersen (1981) Chaosium
(1981) Heroes of Olympus -     1st ed by B. Dennis Sustare (1981) Task Force Games
(1981) Merc -     1st ed by Paul D. Baader, Walter Mark, Lawrence Sangee (1981) FGU
(1981) Universe -     1st ed by John H. Butterfield (1981) SPI
(1982) Taste My Steel -     1st ed by Don Johnson (1982) Phantasy Network
(1982) Second Dawn -     1st ed by Art Wiederhold, George J. Herget (1982) Arrose Enterprises
(1982) Simulacron I -     1st ed by Mark Manning (1982) Simulacron I
(1982) Gangbusters -     1st ed by Mark Acres, Rick Krebs, Tom Moldvay (1982) TSR
(1982) Starleader: Assault -     1st ed by Howard Thompson (1982) Metagaming
(1982) Cassiopean Empire -     1st ed by Raymond Norton (1982) Norton Games
(1982) M.I.S.S.I.O.N. -     1st ed by Ernest T. Hams (1982) Kabal Gaming Systems
(1982) Dawn Patrol -     1st ed by Mike Carr et al. (1982) TSR
(1982) Swordbearer -     1st ed by Arnold Hendrick, Dennis Sustare (1982) Heritage Models
(1982) Supervillians -     1st ed by Rick Register, R. Vance Buck, Allen D. Eldridge (1982) Task Force Games
(1982) Man, Myth, and Magic -     1st ed by Herbie Brennan (1982) Yaquinto
(1982) Phase VII -     1st ed by Dennis Drew II (1982) Cheshire Games
(1982) FTL:2448 -     1st ed by Richard Tucholka (1982) Tri-Tac Games


Are you sure all of them were just variations on D&D? Surely some of them had some innovation in there...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron]Are you sure all of them were just variations on D&D? Surely some of them had some innovation in there...

Of course, as we all know, Pundit is full of shit.  On one hand, he'll make the sweeping generalisation that there has been no innovation... and yet, the moment a game does try to be a bit different, he'll claim it isn't really an RPG (or dismiss it as little more than a gimmick).  In other words, according to his very definitions of what makes a game an RPG, it is almost impossible to be innovative and remain one!

Well, yes. But as to Funk's actual question, innovation in the last ten years... well I don't know, how different does it have to be? No skills/attributes/dis/advantages divide? Apart from freeform traits games, my own rpg. Then there's freeform traits, which game first had that, was it within the last decade? How about the GM paying the player XP to active traits in Fate, is that different enough from "roleplay your bad stuff well and get extra xp"?

I mean, every game does something a bit different and new, which may or may not change your own game group's fun much... how different does it have to be?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkOf course, as we all know, Pundit is full of shit.  On one hand, he'll make the sweeping generalisation that there has been no innovation... and yet, the moment a game does try to be a bit different, he'll claim it isn't really an RPG (or dismiss it as little more than a gimmick).  In other words, according to his very definitions of what makes a game an RPG, it is almost impossible to be innovative and remain one!

Except that he's kind of right.  Depending on where you set the threshhold for what constitutes a major innovation.

Nothing is ever going to be as big a new thing as the invention of roleplaying games themselves.  D&D was built on some wargaming background sure, but what they did with it made it a whole new hobby that never really existed before.  Aspects of it had, but they put it together and created a whole new concept.

And the concepts as we know them today have remained pretty damn stable.  Variations on the basic structure have taken place, but by and large I've seen nothing on the order of creating an entirely new hobby.

Anything that was similarly revolutionary, would likely in turn only somewhat resemble RPGs as we know them.  

The closest real equivalent that I can see, is the creation of the CRPG and adventure genres with Rogue and Adventure.  They took some of the basic building blocks of RPGs and D&D in particular, and created an entirely new type of game that has since gone on to develop independently of RPGs themselves, though they dip back in the well to varying degrees, much as some RPGs have dipped back into the wargame well when it came to creating more tactically and strategically interesting games.  

Everything else is pretty much just refinement and variations on the same basic concept.  D&D was inventing the toaster, every thing since has been more about tweaking the toaster to do different things.  Everybody's heard about how Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, not many people have heard or care about the countless people who've evolved the light bulb into the form we find on the store shelf today unless they're electrical engineers.

The main difference is jsut in the level of engagement with the mechanics of things.  RPGs are somewhat unique in that the essentially require all of their end consumers to be the equivalent of an electrical engineer, so as a group we tend to care more about those minor evolutions and refinements and where they came from, than you might find in other sectors.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe closest real equivalent that I can see, is the creation of the CRPG and adventure genres with Rogue and Adventure.  They took some of the basic building blocks of RPGs and D&D in particular, and created an entirely new type of game that has since gone on to develop independently of RPGs themselves, though they dip back in the well to varying degrees, much as some RPGs have dipped back into the wargame well when it came to creating more tactically and strategically interesting games.  

Wouldn't Magic: the Gathering meet this criteria? Especially as it isn't really a RPG, unless you consider it like Pendragon where everyone plays the same profession.  It certainly draws from the genre and has stories based around it.
It was a major innovation and spawned a whole new related hobby.
=

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only real MECHANICAL innovation ever made to the RPG was Amber's truly diceless strategic-competitive play, and that was a one-shot (no other game has really followed in its footsteps; a few of them pretended to but always fucked it up by trying to get some kind of a replacement for the roll of dice, whether it was some gimmick or some kind of beancounting).

That is in fact what Nobilis runs on: a roll-over system without dice. The real difference to Amber isn't the division of the attributes into what a character can accomplish effortlessly (the ratings) and how much further he can push himself if necessary (the pools), but rather that the game quantifies the difficulty of every action and resolves them mechanically just like diced RPGs do.

Quote from: J ArcaneNothing is ever going to be as big a new thing as the invention of roleplaying games themselves.  D&D was built on some wargaming background sure, but what they did with it made it a whole new hobby that never really existed before.  Aspects of it had, but they put it together and created a whole new concept.

And the concepts as we know them today have remained pretty damn stable.  Variations on the basic structure have taken place, but by and large I've seen nothing on the order of creating an entirely new hobby.

I'm extremely suspicious here that you've got a circular definition that if something is significantly different than D&D, then it isn't a role-playing game so it doesn't count as innovation.  For example, LARPs, computer RPGs, and online RPGs (from MUSHes to MMORPGs) are all largely separate hobbies from tabletop at this point.  Story games like Baron Munchausen and Pantheon, or later ones like Polaris or A Thousand and One Nights are quite different as well.  

Even within traditional tabletop RPGs, this seems doubtful to me.  If we compare:

1) Wesely's Braunstein scenarios (circa 1967)

2) Basic set D&D dungeon crawls (circa 1977)

3) Ars Magica in full troupe style with Whimsy cards (circa 1987)

I'd say there is as much difference between #2 and #3 as between #1 and #2.  Traditional tabletop RPGs have changed enormously from when D&D first came out -- particularly in the concept and mechanics of character.

Two LJ posts of mine:

RPG Design Innovations, Part 1 (http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/4558.html)

RPG Design Innovations, Part 2 (http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/4644.html)

Quote from: jhkimTraditional tabletop RPGs have changed enormously from when D&D first came out -- particularly in the concept and mechanics of character.

I'd disagree with "changed".  I'd be more inclined to suggest that tabletop RPGs have expanded to cover more ground.  I think a lot that happens at modern D&D tables would not seem alien to a time-displaced Little Beige Book player from the 70's.

Quote from: jrientsI'd disagree with "changed".  I'd be more inclined to suggest that tabletop RPGs have expanded to cover more ground.  I think a lot that happens at modern D&D tables would not seem alien to a time-displaced Little Beige Book player from the 70's.

If anything there may be less of a culture shock. I'm given to understand that D&D was far more freewheeling back in those days. Gygax and Arneson's campaigns significantly deviated from one another on a number of mechanical and social levels, apparently.

Quote from: jhkimI'm extremely suspicious here that you've got a circular definition that if something is significantly different than D&D, then it isn't a role-playing game so it doesn't count as innovation.  For example, LARPs, computer RPGs, and online RPGs (from MUSHes to MMORPGs) are all largely separate hobbies from tabletop at this point.  Story games like Baron Munchausen and Pantheon, or later ones like Polaris or A Thousand and One Nights are quite different as well.  

Even within traditional tabletop RPGs, this seems doubtful to me.  If we compare:

1) Wesely's Braunstein scenarios (circa 1967)

2) Basic set D&D dungeon crawls (circa 1977)

3) Ars Magica in full troupe style with Whimsy cards (circa 1987)

I'd say there is as much difference between #2 and #3 as between #1 and #2.  Traditional tabletop RPGs have changed enormously from when D&D first came out -- particularly in the concept and mechanics of character.

1)  You're not thinking foundationally enough.

2)  You're underestimating the flexibility of OD&D and the way in which it was actually played to a pretty silly level.

jrients is wise here.

Quote from: J Arcane1)  You're not thinking foundationally enough.

2)  You're underestimating the flexibility of OD&D and the way in which it was actually played to a pretty silly level.

jrients is wise here.

Conversely, I think you're underestimating the flexibility of the Braunsteins.  If you think that they were just moving pieces around on a board, you're totally wrong.

Quote from: jhkimConversely, I think you're underestimating the flexibility of the Braunsteins.  If you think that they were just moving pieces around on a board, you're totally wrong.

And I think you're going out of your way to miss the point I was trying to make based on some percieved slight that was never intended or placed in the text of it.

The 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.  

In a way, you even agree with it in your post, you've just gotten wierdly defensive about it's core truth.

EDIT:  To borrow a line, "So what I said was true, from a certain point of view."  

I 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.

I would also point out that there's nothing that I have seen that's really changed rolepalying as we know it, which would be another good bar to set.  All we've really got are variations on mechanic and theme, none of them necessarily an objective improvement over the other.

Whatever.

As I said before, there are innovations which first appeared a long time ago, but only recently achieved widespread notice, however you want to define that--number of titles using the innovation, the amount of discussion it gets, number of copies of games sold that use the innovation.

Going from John's list, there are a number of innovations that seem to be getting wider use and wider notice these days, even if they first appeared a while ago. As well many of them are appearing in more elaborate form.

* Mechanics for Social Resolution--yes, there were reaction tables from the start, and later there were skills like Fast Talk and Oratory, but games like HQ, Burning Wheel, DitV, The Dying Earth, and Exalted 2e have elaborated the concept and turned "social combat" into a meatier mechanic.

* Directed Rewards--dating back at least to Marvel Superheroes, but canonized in games like The Shadow of Yesterday with Keys, and Burning Wheel with Artha

* Instant Rewards (or more accurately IMO, instant mechanical character development)--in Polaris, DitV, Sorcerer, and probably a bunch of others

* Meta-Game Control for players--increasingly fashionable, extensive, and enforced/spelled out mechanically, e.g., The Mountain Witch, Polaris...probably SotC though I haven't read it.

* Freeform Character Traits--Over the Edge may have been the first, but Hero Wars/HQ, DitV, Risus have popularized them more recently. Furthermore HQ is becoming a family of games while also apparently spawning a side branch known as Other Worlds (Mike Holmes et. al.)

Do I enjoy every one of these innovations? Hard to say without looking at specific examples; as the examples go, some seem to work better than others. But to my eyes, even if not all these concepts are completely new, their widespread visibility is.

Quote from: jhkimConversely, I think you're underestimating the flexibility of the Braunsteins.  If you think that they were just moving pieces around on a board, you're totally wrong.

This is the first time I've heard of Braunstein. Outside Wikipedia, where can I learn more?

Seanchai

Quote from: GrimGentThat is in fact what Nobilis runs on: a roll-over system without dice. The real difference to Amber isn't the division of the attributes into what a character can accomplish effortlessly (the ratings) and how much further he can push himself if necessary (the pools), but rather that the game quantifies the difficulty of every action and resolves them mechanically just like diced RPGs do.

Yup, 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).

The fact is that its really really difficult to make anything REALLY innovative and still have an actual RPG.  Innovation tends to be a mutation that creates something new and different from RPGs, not something that happens within RPG systems themselves.

Like I said, the actual innovations WITHIN RPGs are almost all innovations in format, layout, structure, or marketing, not actual innovations in the actual game itself.

RPGPundit

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" (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=986585).  

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 (http://ptgptb.org/0001/history1.html), 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...

Quote from: Tyberious FunkNo 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.

Re-read my last post.  It's not a stupid argument to make, it's the only argument to make that doesn't hold the danger of wandering into value judgement territory, something that is ultimately going to be a useless quagmire of pointless bickering when it comes to a subjective topic like RPGs.  

You won't find very many, if any, actual objective improvements on the hobby anywhere in it's 30+ years of history.  Nothing that the group as a whole can point to and say "This is undeniably better than RPGs as they were before".  For every new approach or mechanical concept or style that someone thinks is fucking brilliant, there's going to be plenty others who think it's awful.

Which is why approaching RPGs from the viewpoint of looking for "innovation" is ultimately going to be a futile gesture that boils down to a lot of people pointing at stuff they like, and a lot of other people responding with "what the hell is so great about that?"

RPGs are not technology.  RPGs are a subjective medium.  The same rubrics do not apply, and the same terminology cannot necessarily be used without causing disruption.

Quote from: J ArcaneRe-read my last post. It's not a stupid argument to make, it's the only argument to make that doesn't hold the danger of wandering into value judgement territory, something that is ultimately going to be a useless quagmire of pointless bickering when it comes to a subjective topic like RPGs.

Except... this is a discussion forum.  If the things we discussed were all objective truths, it would get boring pretty quickly, don't you think?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkExcept... this is a discussion forum.  If the things we discussed were all objective truths, it would get boring pretty quickly, don't you think?

We've had plenty of discussion of my hypothesis haven't we?  ;)

Seriously, sometimes it's nice to cut straight down the the bare bones instead of letting the discussion spin in the usual circles, no?  

And it also sort of cuts right to the heart of exactly why the comment that sparked this thread got so many people steamed.  Claims of "innovation" in RPGs are very, very often steeped in value judgements that are likely to piss someone off.

That quote basically paraphrases to "The forge are the only ones improving RPGs", and that's neither a true statement, or one that's not destined to piss off a hell of a lot of people who don't think much of what the Forge has done with games.

Quote from: J ArcaneThat quote basically paraphrases to "The forge are the only ones improving RPGs", and that's neither a true statement, or one that's not destined to piss off a hell of a lot of people who don't think much of what the Forge has done with games.

But this is why I posted the thread in the first place...
 
... I don't like that many Forge games, but I do think some of them are innovative.  Although I'm happy to admit that the breadth of my knowledge on RPGs is limited and a game that looks innovative to me could well be a re-hash of something old.  
 
I guess what I was expecting to see was a fair bit of... "Indie Game X was innovative because it did Y" followed by "Actually, X was in Mainstream Game Z, years earlier" or "Yep, Y was definitely innovative.  Stupid, but innovative."

Quote from: Elliot WilenThat's kind of silly, since Arneson himself credits Weseley and the Braunstein as the genesis of what became D&D.

Arneson is allowed to say that.
When he says it, its one of the actual CREATORS of the RPG citing some of his influences.
When the Swine say it, its their pathetic attempt to claim that Gygax and Arneson didn't invent the RPG.

See the difference?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSee the difference?

The motivations are different, but the truth is still the same?

Quote from: mearlsIf 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.

That'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.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Tyberious FunkNo 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.

Point out to me one "improvement" in actual RPG rules that EVERYONE agrees makes RPGs objectively better than before.

I think certain people are setting the bar pointlessly LOW in order to claim they're just as brilliant as Gygax or more deserving of praise than Arneson for the creation of their shitty little gimmicky micro-game or tic-tac-toe based task resolution system...

RPGPundit

Quote from: Tyberious FunkBut this is why I posted the thread in the first place...
 
... I don't like that many Forge games, but I do think some of them are innovative.  Although I'm happy to admit that the breadth of my knowledge on RPGs is limited and a game that looks innovative to me could well be a re-hash of something old.  
 
I guess what I was expecting to see was a fair bit of... "Indie Game X was innovative because it did Y" followed by "Actually, X was in Mainstream Game Z, years earlier" or "Yep, Y was definitely innovative.  Stupid, but innovative."

Yeah but see, I could put a stupid yellow swirl on the top of my car and call that "innovative" but it wouldn't be a real innovation, it would just be idiotic window-dressing.

Almost all the changes to RPG's mechanics over the years have been just that, cosmetic window-dressing.  Do you like rolling a lot of skill checks, or attribute checks? Do you like Saving throws? Classes? levels? Point-buy?

Going from one of those things to another, going from level-based to point-buy for example, is not something that fundamentally changes the nature of the game, it doesn't fix a fundamental flaw in the game, it does not universally improve the experience of play. It isn't even really DIFFERENT except in the most superficial aesthetic way.

You know what universally improves the experience of play? Having a book layout where the rules are organized in a way that makes sense. Having an index. Having task resolution systems that are consistent. Marketing. Network externalities. Those are where the real innovations are found.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThe motivations are different, but the truth is still the same?

Much like Pundit's posts to this thread when compared to mine, I might point out.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThe motivations are different, but the truth is still the same?

No, what they're saying is actually totally different.

Its like the difference between claiming that Mary Shelley was an influence on Lovecraft when he invented the Cthulhu mythos, and claiming that it was actually Mary Shelley who invented the Cthulhu mythos.

One is giving credit where its due. The other is just a fucking lie.

RPGPundit

Nobody except RPGPundit and J_Arcane has suggested that "innovation" is either/or. There are degrees of newness and useful difference. Nor has anyone said that these new and different things are good for everybody.

Certainly the greatest innovation was to invent rpgs in the first place. But that does not mean there have been no significant innovations since, or that any innovation must have been universally good.  

Again, RPGPundit is posting a logical fallacy based on a rush to extremes, excluding a middle ground. Specifically, the fallacy of the excluded middle.
"I am against capital punishment."
"What, so we should just let them all go?!"
"I am in favour of capital punishment."
"What, so we should execute people for jaywalking?!"
"Have there been any innovations in rpgs since their invention?"
"No, because if they were true innovations they wouldn't be rpgs any more."

Things admit of degrees.

Now, can we please set this absurdity aside and have people mention what they consider to be innovations in rpgs? These may be, as the OP said, innovations in either game mechanics, or style and writing.

Like my hypothetical example: have there been any rpgs which presented the rules entirely "in-character" for that game world? That would be an innovation of style and writing.

The Bold truth is this : MOST Gamers out there have not heard about the fricking FORGE and don't care about it one way or the other.

 If I actually thought it worth the time and did a survey of gamers at the 4 or 5 stores locally and asked what the Innovations of REPG-type gaming have been over the past 20 years ..heres whatr I might get :

 The LARP/World of Darkness stuff

 The whole Open Game License idea

 Honestely I can't think much else that would stand out to general gamers. Except maybe when their favorite setting is turned into an RPG book or gets a NEW Book devoted to it.

 You know what ? - Thats okay. The whole RPG idea of gaming still works  for thje most part

 The Forge ? You ask most gamers out there - and they haven't heard of it. Only gamer types that spend a LOT of time online have heard of the Forge, the so-called Indie Revolution, or bumped into the Swine shit.

 My opinion...your kilometerage may vary


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarThe Bold truth is this : MOST Gamers out there have not heard about the fricking FORGE and don't care about it one way or the other.

Clearly, this is a problem that we must remedy by discussing it incessantly!

!i!

Quote from: KoltarIf I actually thought it worth the time and did a survey of gamers at the 4 or 5 stores locally and asked what the Innovations of REPG-type gaming have been over the past 20 years ..heres whatr I might get :

 The LARP/World of Darkness stuff

 The whole Open Game License idea

What the hell does how many people have heard of a concept/idea have to do with quality or level of innovation? This is crazy trees falling in the forest Zen koan thinking.

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?

Well, Castle Falkenstein is about as close as you get, although I think the premise that the rules shouldn't be told as an abstraction just can't be reached. Reality and throwing dice just don't mix.

QuoteChallenge Rating is worthless and makes the game bland.

This is the most anti-western bullshit that you ever said, Pundit.

Come to your senses!

Do you consider Mythic (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=618&src=RPGShop) innovative or a rehash?

Closest that I have see is the old solo or "Pick a Page" adventures, yet it is neither of these.
=

Quote from: RPGPunditArneson is allowed to say that.
When he says it, its one of the actual CREATORS of the RPG citing some of his influences.
When the Swine say it, its their pathetic attempt to claim that Gygax and Arneson didn't invent the RPG.

See the difference?

I'd see the difference if you could point to instances of anyone claiming that Gygax and Arneson didn't invent the RPG. I guess the closest I can think of is Ron Edwards in one of his articles ("A Hard Look at Dungeons and Dragons"), which I think contains a fair amount of speculation and political axe-grinding masquerading as scholarship, including when he touches on the invention of RPGs. However he never mentions Braunstein, and as I've suggested, tracing the roots of D&D back to Braunstein shows that his "myth of the Fall (or Narrativism Betrayed)" is ass-backwards.

Oh, wait. This goes back to the Pistols at Dawn (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2791) thread with Sett, doesn't it? Okay, this is an internal Swine War issue, you think Sett is "giving ground to the enemy", so you're attacking anything that he uses to support his ideas.

Quote from: J ArcaneBecause 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.

Ah, I see the problem. You're reading into this something that needn't be. In arts, which includes games, innovation is impossible to separate from its etymological root & its dictionary meaning, which is just "new".

This is why I apologized for using a technological analogy, because I do understand that. Your literary analogy is more apt; I certainly don't see Don Quixote as an improvement on The Iliad even though the former is widely seen as the first novel. (There's that root again.)

However by the same argument D&D was only an innovation in the narrow sense; the proof is trivial: Scrabble, Chess, Checkers, Diplomacy, Panzerblitz...none of these were rendered obsolete by the invention of D&D. In fact within the hobby game field, the immediate forebears of D&D, namely wargames, continued to develop in both board and miniatures variety, more or less separately from RPGs, and continue to be produced and played today. That leaves us only with the argumentum ad populum: I wouldn't be surprised if RPGs (and probably D&D all by itself) are a bigger hobby today than all wargames combined. But, that's a dumb argument unless the question concerns marketing and market environment rather than quality or taste. If popularity were a measure of progress, we'd have to conclude that RPGs have gotten worse since the 1980's.

In conclusion I believe there has been innovation in the field of RPGs over the last decade, though I would measure it purely in terms of new approaches gaining widespread currency, not in terms of "improvement".

The most innovative design decisions in the hobby are probably the ones that leaves us arguing if the design in question is an rpg at all.  I may not care much for MMORPGs or LARPS or most of the Forge-driven story-type games, but those are places where I see the innovation most clearly.  To say that such-and-such a mechanic is an innovative approach is not on the same level as these clear paradigm-breakers.

Also, I agree with Pundit that "The Braunsteins were a big influence on Arneson" is a different statement than "The Braunsteins invented what we call roleplaying".  Without Arneson and his enthusiastic dungeon-delvers we would not have the hobby as we know it.

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.

Personally, I don't find it desireable. Too many companies and designers create gimmicky games in the name of innovation.

Seanchai

Does innovation with regards to RPGs have to mean groundbreaking or even popular ? Could it just mean expanding the possibilities of what an RPG is ?

Regards,
David R

Well people, neither of you listened to me, so this thread is where I predicted it to be.

Theres different kinds of innovations. The ones Jrients has in mind, might be called "basic innovations", and can be likened to product life cycles and even kondratieff cycles. If you believe in those concepts that is.

Mearls on the other hand is talking about procedural innovations in D&D rules. Way more narrow.

So what are we talking about? Decide!

@Braunstein & D&D:

The REAL and HUGE as well as BASIC innovation in D&D was the following:


1) Providing radically new building blocks for fictious situations.
2) Providing a robust model for interaction of said building blocks.
3) Providing the idea for interacting building blocks

Building Blocks:
- spells
- magic items
- monsters
- special abilities
- traps
(- planes & gods)

the combat stuff was already there in some form. Just look at the monsters, at the spells and realize how this stuff was basically made from whole cloth!
I cannot emphasize the importance of that enough.
Whole cloth!

Sure there are conceptual sources. But the procedure in which source material and original ideas were mixed and mashed and formed into interactive building blocks for challenges and their resolution, is creative genius of the highest degree!

And no matter what nice little precedural innovations mearls (whom I hold in the highest respect, I even wrote him a filk song) cited, they don´t matter much.
The reason why D&D is so robust is because neither of him, Monte, not even Mentzer, Moldvay. And surely not Arneson or Weseley. It´s Gary´s freaky mind that created the building blocks (AFAIK).
That´s why you can even drop the thief class and different damage for different weapons: The oeuvre of building blocks Gary created is the BIG THING that jumpstarted our hobby.

What 3.x did so very right is concentrating and polishing the

1) building blocks
and
2) their interaction

Keep in mind, that from this perspective, the RQ/Traveller line of tradition is actually a conceptual step back: it´s like the Kriegsspiel supplements made by officers to enhance "realism" but within the single character framework.

Traveller  is conceptually Braunstein+Kriegsspiel Supplements, whereas D&D is Arneson+Gygaxian Building blocks and RQ is Arneson+Kriegsspiel Supplements.

So we have:

- the Braunstein flavour MoR
- the Arnesonian Dungeon
- the Gygaxian building blocks
- the Kriegsspiel supplement tradition

Quote from: David RDoes innovation with regards to RPGs have to mean groundbreaking or even popular ? Could it just mean expanding the possibilities of what an RPG is ?

Regards,
David R

This is the understanding of "innovation" I most like on this thread.

Quote from: RPGPunditPoint out to me one "improvement" in actual RPG rules that EVERYONE agrees makes RPGs objectively better than before.

I think certain people are setting the bar pointlessly LOW in order to claim they're just as brilliant as Gygax or more deserving of praise than Arneson for the creation of their shitty little gimmicky micro-game or tic-tac-toe based task resolution system...

Sigh.  The fucking lies really start to annoy me.  Pundit, the claim that there have been any innovations in the hobby at all is not the same as saying that Joe Schmoe is more deserving of praise than Arneson.  

And regardless of that, your criteria is stupid.  Not EVERYONE agrees that OD&D is objectively better than prior games.  

Sure, you can probably dig out someone somewhere who claims that OD&D is his favorite game and plays with his copy of "Greyhawk" -- but the vast majority of people play the D20 version, which has been majorly influenced by prior games: notably RuneQuest and The Fantasy Trip.  

Quote from: jrientsThe most innovative design decisions in the hobby are probably the ones that leaves us arguing if the design in question is an rpg at all.  I may not care much for MMORPGs or LARPS or most of the Forge-driven story-type games, but those are places where I see the innovation most clearly.  To say that such-and-such a mechanic is an innovative approach is not on the same level as these clear paradigm-breakers.

Also, I agree with Pundit that "The Braunsteins were a big influence on Arneson" is a different statement than "The Braunsteins invented what we call roleplaying".  Without Arneson and his enthusiastic dungeon-delvers we would not have the hobby as we know it.

Yeah, that person who said the Braunsteins invented roleplaying was a fucking moron.  Oh wait?  Who said that?  That would be no one because it's a fucking lie of Pundit's.

I'm the one who brought up the Braunsteins, and I never claimed that they invented role-playing.  D&D was an enormously innovative and it completely changed the face of the hobby -- but if you want to have any measure of its innovation, you have to compare it to its predecessors.

Though my input was ignored, maybe comments from others in the industry that do feel that Mythic is innovative will be noted.

Quote from: Jeff Dee-It's the most amazing new thing I've seen in the tabletop RPG hobby in
-many many years! Thank you thank you thank you.

-Excuse me, I'm going to go have another solo adventure now.

--Jeff Dee
-UNIgames

Quote from: Tom PigeonFor those of you with Faulty Memory Syndrone, Jeff is one of the original artists on AD&D.
Think the Norse and Egyptian sections of Deities and Demigods and you'll
know exactly who I mean. Also, his art can be found in a boatload of modules
(Slave Pits,etc.). He is also the designer of Villains and Vigilantes. Today,
he runs Unigames (check him out at http://www.io.com/unigames/)

Ideas that have been recycled, had to have been initially introduced and cast aside.
=

Quote from: jhkimSigh.    


Yeah, that person who said the Braunsteins invented roleplaying was a fucking moron.  Oh wait?  Who said that?  That would be no one because it's a fucking lie of Pundit's.
I'm the one who brought up the Braunsteins, and I never claimed that they invented role-playing.  D&D was an enormously innovative and it completely changed the face of the hobby -- but if you want to have any measure of its innovation, you have to compare it to its predecessors.

 NO - its NOT a lie of Pundit's, in the book The Fantasy Role-Playing Bibleby Sean Patrick Fannon (ISBN 0-7615-0264-5) the Braunsteins are specifically mentioned as what gave "birth" to D&D or at least they should be considered proto-Dungeons & Dragons or Roleplaying games.


- Ed C.

That´s where I got it from, too.

OK, let's try this again.  Here's what I was responding to:

Quote from: jrientsAlso, I agree with Pundit that "The Braunsteins were a big influence on Arneson" is a different statement than "The Braunsteins invented what we call roleplaying".  Without Arneson and his enthusiastic dungeon-delvers we would not have the hobby as we know it.

There is a non-existent argument here.  Everyone agrees that the Braunsteins were an influence and can reasonably called the proto-role-playing -- this was explicitly cited by Arneson, but everyone here also agrees there was major innovation in the creation of D&D.

I agree with Sett that it's easy to overlook the genius of Gygax. D&D has been around for 30 years, and there's no reason to think it won't be around for 30 more. Not many games can claim that.

Playing D&D or any other RPG is unlike any other hobby. There are some similarities here and there, but the at the table, sitting down and playing experience is utterly unique. Not only that, but it seems to tap into some basic function. It's stood the test of time.

Quote from: KoltarNO - its NOT a lie of Pundit's, in the book The Fantasy Role-Playing Bibleby Sean Patrick Fannon (ISBN 0-7615-0264-5) the Braunsteins are specifically mentioned as what gave "birth" to D&D or at least they should be considered proto-Dungeons & Dragons or Roleplaying games.

Unless Sean Patrick Fannon is "Swine", Pundit's claim is still off base.  Given that he wrote The Fantasy Role-Playing Bible in 1995, years before the so-called swine even existed I'd suggest probably not.

Quote from: RPGPunditWow, 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.

The vast majority of D&D players care to disagree, if the relative success of 3e vs. previous versions of the game are any indicator.

I mean, perhaps changes and innovations don't appeal to you, but that doesn't rob them of being innovations and improvements for the typical gamer.

Wow...that's weird.  It's like watching Pundit argue with someone else only the roles are reversed.

No offense, Mr. Mearls.  I just mean that usually he's telling people that while they might think it's a heaping pile of shit, there are obviously a lot of people out there buying/playing/having fun with D&D.

And now you're throwing that argument (with which I agree to a certain extent) right back at him.

It's bizarro thread...

Quote from: James J SkachWow...that's weird.  It's like watching Pundit argue with someone else only the roles are reversed.

No offense, Mr. Mearls.  I just mean that usually he's telling people that while they might think it's a heaping pile of shit, there are obviously a lot of people out there buying/playing/having fun with D&D.

And now you're throwing that argument (with which I agree to a certain extent) right back at him.

It's bizarro thread...

Not really, not if you've been paying attention to what Pundit is really saying most of the time.

BTW, Kyle asked if a game was ever written from a character's POV. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen may qualify. I think I've heard some things about Dictionary of Mu being written that way, too, though I doubt it stays "in character" all the way through.

Chronicles of Talislanta, although written purely as a background (no mechanics) is entirely in the voice of a wandering scholar/charlatan. But some parts don't maintain the illusion very well (e.g. a keyed city map that reads much like any other RPG keyed city map).

Quote from: mearlsThe vast majority of D&D players care to disagree, if the relative success of 3e vs. previous versions of the game are any indicator.

I mean, perhaps changes and innovations don't appeal to you, but that doesn't rob them of being innovations and improvements for the typical gamer.

I don't deny that the majority of D&D players today probably love things like CR and other gonzo-killing elements. They're very inclined towards the idea that RPGs should be "balanced" at all costs.

So yes, I'll recognize I'm in the minority.  To call that a really radical "innovation", on the other hand, seems pretty dubious to me.  I'm sure someone else who isn't as tired as I feel right now could probably point out other RPGs that pushed this idea of "balance uber alles" for a long time now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimSigh.  The fucking lies really start to annoy me.  Pundit, the claim that there have been any innovations in the hobby at all is not the same as saying that Joe Schmoe is more deserving of praise than Arneson.
...
Yeah, that person who said the Braunsteins invented roleplaying was a fucking moron.  Oh wait?  Who said that?  That would be no one because it's a fucking lie of Pundit's.

It wasn't advocated by anyone "important" (for game "industry" values of important, of course), but it has come up quite often on Usenet and various game forums over the years; usually as an anti-Gygax, less commonly a generic anti-D&D swipe.

Quote from: mearlsI agree with Sett that it's easy to overlook the genius of Gygax. D&D has been around for 30 years, and there's no reason to think it won't be around for 30 more. Not many games can claim that.

Indeed, although my appreciation of Gygax isn't entirely based on his role as a co-inventor, but rather for his unique vision that helped shape D&D into something drastically different from the public perception of "generic mediaeval fantasy". From a post I made on RPGNet (Who is the greatest name in FRPG history, and why? (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=294161)):

QuoteMy vote goes to Gary Gygax, but not necessarily for the reason other people have nominated him. It is likely that had EGG been absent from the wargaming scene in the late 60s, someone else would have eventually come up with the roleplaying concept. Brownstein games were already ongoing, and someone would have probably made the leap - maybe it would have even been Dave Arneson, in cooperation with someone else.

No. The reason I consider Gary Gygax the greatest name in FRPG history is his uniqe, whimsical and quirky vision of what the game could, and what the game should be. Anyone with a wargaming background and an interest in Tolkien could have created the game of heroic adventuring among dragons, wolves and giant spiders. But it needed the creative drive of Gary Gygax (working through himself or through his influence – e.g. in Rob Kuntz, Bob Bledsaw and others) to bring us the game of antisocial nobodies making a name for themselves in a world populated by carnivorous gelatine, giant amphibians, beholders and glaive-guisarmes, where dungeons don't make strict sense, but are a repository of the exotic and the fascinating.

In a respect, Gary Gygax is not the world's best known game designer celebrity. He is the unknown genius, the man everyone quotes but whose ideas have been thoroughly discarded and forgotten. Roleplaying - even in immensely popular games such as D&D 3.5th edition – bears very little resemblance to his original game. I wager to say later designers - the less famous TSR luminaries of the 80s, like Weiss, Hickman and Greenwood, have had more of a say in forming the mental image of D&D gaming than Gary did. It is probably a good idea to take the time and peruse his texts - whether in the OD&D booklets, the modules or the first edition rulebooks - to look at what he was doing and what he was attempting to say. It is an enlightening exercise, as it reveals the fruits of a highly active and fantastic imagination. Very much unlike what you would expect in "bog standard fantasy roleplaying", but very engaging nevertheless.

The old man of RPGs and his ideas are dead and buried. Rest in Peace.

Dave Arneson started with the Braunsterin things. Gary Gygax came into the story a little later. It was also the early 1970s and Hobbit and Lord of the Ringswere making a headway in popularity with their crowds.

 I'm not "anti-Gygax" either....however at the GenCons that I've been to , Dave Arneson has been a nicer guy and more of a socialable guy. Maybe not a big deal - but worth noting.

MMORPGs might be considered a "side issue" not an innovation. Its borderline for me. At least with those things  the terminology of our hobby entered mainstream usage in people's conversations.  When you mention RPGs - most people realize that there are two kinds  online and around the table top.


The BIG THREE innovations in 30 + years :

1) LARPS...and the spin-off ways of playing from them.

2) Open game License /D20 thing.
(Tho HERO system & GURPS did the attempt at universal roleplaying much earlier chonoogically speaking)

3) MMORPGS - popularizing the terminology and getting older, married gamers back into the mindset - hey when you got kids and a spouse its difficult to schedule an around-the-tabletop group once a week or even once a month.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarWhen you mention RPGs - most people realize that there are two kinds  online and around the table top.


The BIG THREE innovations in 30 + years :

1) LARPS...and the spin-off ways of playing from them.

2) Open game License /D20 thing.
(Tho HERO system & GURPS did the attempt at universal roleplaying much earlier chonoogically speaking)

3) MMORPGS - popularizing the terminology and getting older, married gamers back into the mindset - hey when you got kids and a spouse its difficult to schedule an around-the-tabletop group once a week or even once a month.

- Ed C.

It is good that Someone would recognize innovation if it bit them. ;)

and I would like to add GMless to the list.
=

In my pants.

...

Seriously though, the definition of 'innovation' requires having a purpose in mind. A thing is not innovative unless it helps you achieve something you want differently or more effectively.

So what are the things you want to achieve in gaming, and how are the rules, gimmicks, or whatever, helping you achieve it or not?

Once we answer that, THEN we can talk about innovation.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerISeriously though, the definition of 'innovation' requires having a purpose in mind. A thing is not innovative unless it helps you achieve something you want differently or more effectively.

If the rules are written down and every player has (or can have) a copy of them.  
If the rules cover all (or close enough to all) imaginable situations that need adjudicated.
What purpose does a GM serve and why do we still think we need one to play a RPG?

Isn't that something to achieve in RPG gaming that board games have had for ages?
=

I'm not sure what prompted those questions. Perhaps you're still pushing Mythic, and I admit from what I've heard it sounds like a very interesting and perhaps innovative product. However those general questions can be answered in a variety of ways and I'll bet that Mythic doesn't really address all of them. If you'd like to field questions on Mythic, perhaps you could start a separate thread where we could discuss this.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't deny that the majority of D&D players today probably love things like CR and other gonzo-killing elements. They're very inclined towards the idea that RPGs should be "balanced" at all costs.

So yes, I'll recognize I'm in the minority.  To call that a really radical "innovation", on the other hand, seems pretty dubious to me.  I'm sure someone else who isn't as tired as I feel right now could probably point out other RPGs that pushed this idea of "balance uber alles" for a long time now.

I don't think CR gave players a sense that the DM should only throw encounters of a certain strength at them. I think CR gave them the vocabulary needed to say, "This encounter is unfair." It happened in previous editions of the game, but now players have a numerical rating attached to monsters that they can point to when making their case.

"Balance" in RPG R&D parlance means "balance between character options." It has nothing to do with monsters. Monsters go through design and get a CR assigned to them at the end. I have no idea why attaching a number that rates their strength from 1 to X does anything other than vastly improve* the game.

*Assuming the number is accurate and presents a scale that is easy to understand and usable.

To me the frustration with encounters that are "just right" for our group is that I´m supposed to win.

There is no greater glory in there for me, as I dig anti-climactical strategic gaming against overwhelming odds. Indirect approach and all.

But that´s a gripe with modules, not with the rules. And about modules now and then we already had a decent thread with calithena, melan and mearls in it.

So I´d greatly appreciate if we could stop playing pundit´s game of intermingling CRs etc. with a certain mentality of module design. These things are not related and are only intertwixed via Pundit´s sloppy reading of the DMG, and lack of actual play experience.

I just want to weigh in on the "CR means everything is perfectly balanced against the party" thing:

Quote from: Dungeon Master's Guide, page 49Sometimes, the PCs encounter something that's a pushover for them.  At other times, an encounter is too difficult, and they have to run away.  A well-constructed adventure has a variety of encounters at several different levels of difficulty.

Immediately following this is specific advice on the specific range and frequency of encounter difficulties.  (And yes, "the PCs don't have a chance in hell of winning" is on the list.)

As I said, Pundit´s shoddy reading of the DMG.
There´s also a paragraph on "status quo" DMing style, basically the sandbox and Wilderlands style.

Quote from: mearls"Balance" in RPG R&D parlance means "balance between character options." It has nothing to do with monsters. Monsters go through design and get a CR assigned to them at the end. I have no idea why attaching a number that rates their strength from 1 to X does anything other than vastly improve* the game.

There is some truth to Pundit's claims. Even if Wizards designed CR to be descriptive (in which role it is servicable, if far from perfect - 3.0's CR 2 ogres having killed more low level types in our games than anything else), there is a widespread belief that they are prescriptive, and that adventures should follow a certain CR distribution. I don't know if this is a miscommunication in the rulebook, or a real expectation on the side of fandom that clashes with designer priorities. There are other examples - e.g. status quo encounters are mentioned in the DMG, but there are many who conveniently forget this and argue that they should not be used at all.

[edit]Settembrini, many people make the same mistake, not just Pundit. I maintain that we are looking at something some people "wish out of existence".[/edit]

So, wouldn´t it be the better strategy for the Pundit, to call bullshit against the idiots who misread and misinterpreted it?

Wouldn´t it be way more in the RPGPundit´s character, to defend and championize WotC against the hordes of moddly-coddly-whiney players?

Wouldn´t it be a perfect example of how evil PE lines of thought have infested  gaming discourse, while actually ignoring what holy WotC has written in the sacred D&D books?

I think he´s just making two steps less than he used to.

He could rant and rave against a new generation of girlie man players being bred on internet forae, AGAINST what the official rules say!

Because I´ve never ever heard a complaint by someone who doesn´t visit D20 forae about an encounter being too hard for them or being unfair.

So I propose this new line of ranting:
Fight the mentality that came into existance through internet debate.
Defend WotC.

That´d be more fitting.

Every 2nd Edition idiot can berate 3.5 for it´s design decisions. From the Pundit I expect more insight and political sure instinct.

Another, possibly offtopic problem with the CR-EL thing: the system drastically overvalues weak monsters in large numbers. 20 orcs are counted as a very high level challenge (I don't have my book around ATM, but it's at least EL 9 or maybe more). The same 20 orcs are very easily slaughtered by a mid-level party; high-level ones can stand their ground against hundreds of low-level opponents, even if less easily than in previous editions. So the challenge mechanics are not only misinterpreted/open to misinterpretation, but fail to take the realities of play into account.

But I suppose this is fodder for the "CR sucks" thread.

Quote from: SettembriniSo, wouldn´t it be the better strategy for the Pundit, to call bullshit against the idiots who misread and misinterpreted it?

Wouldn´t it be way more in the RPGPundit´s character, to defend and championize WotC against the hordes of moddly-coddly-whiney players?

Wouldn´t it be a perfect example of how evil PE lines of thought have infested  gaming discourse, while actually ignoring what holy WotC has written in the sacred D&D books?

Here's the thing; there are a number of things in the original 3.0 D&D books that were written up a certain way, that Wizards itself proceeded to completely ignore in everything it did afterwards.

Prestige classes, for example, have never been used the way they were intended in the original DMG.  Instead, they have just become "Advanced Character Classes with uberspecial powers".

The concept behind CR is another. Regardless of the fact that the DMG says that sometimes you should create encounters that the PCs are unable to defeat and should run away from, everything else that everyone has ever written for D&D after that point has suggested a totally different mentality, wherein PCs are never supposed to face an opponent that they don't have at least an even-chance of beating through their fucking "resource management".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe concept behind CR is another. Regardless of the fact that the DMG says that sometimes you should create encounters that the PCs are unable to defeat and should run away from, everything else that everyone has ever written for D&D after that point has suggested a totally different mentality, wherein PCs are never supposed to face an opponent that they don't have at least an even-chance of beating through their fucking "resource management".

Well, you, Melan, Gary Gygax and I can agree that there´s not been a healthy dose of "status quo" /sandbox-style learning texts outside of the Wilderlands or similiar niche products.
But, nothing in the rules hinders me in sandbox-style play. Actually, CRs make it easier:
Swamps in the Elphand Lands have an EL of 9 in the average. That´s a huge shortcut for making encounters.
And a great shorthand for rationalizing the environment. How do the cavemen survive in that CR 9 environment?

The CR and resource ramifications give me way better tools to rationalize and extrapolate the necessary defenses and precautions and average level of the caveman villages in the swamps than every other fantasy RPG out there.

The fact that prestige classes aren´t used as you like it, doesn´t hinder you in using them the way you want. In fact, they are already there, you just have to put them in your world.
Before that, there were no Prestige classes to be "abused".

Keep also in mind, that the high challenge environment of Dungeon Magazine and WotC modules makes combats so deadly, you want to use everything you can lay your hands on. Mixing and mashing together half-dragonhood-warlock-spellthieving-barbarians from the lands of badassery sounds awful like un-rationalized gonzo to me.

So decide what you want to rail against:

Too much or too few gonzo elements in 3.x?
You are contradicting yourself.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm not sure what prompted those questions.

I edited my post to indicate what it was responding to.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPerhaps you're still pushing Mythic, and I admit from what I've heard it sounds like a very interesting and perhaps innovative product.

The intent was not to "push" Mythic but to respond to what I thought the Original Poster's question was.
Since the thread seems to have strayed off that topic by my post, I understand your confusion.
=

Powergame min-maxing and Gonzo are not the same thing, Sett. In fact they're utterly opposed.

Gonzo is "weird for weird's sake", not "weird so that I can get that feat which lets me do an extra +1d12+5 damage even though it makes no sense for my character".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditPowergame min-maxing and Gonzo are not the same thing, Sett. In fact they're utterly opposed.

Gonzo is "weird for weird's sake", not "weird so that I can get that feat which lets me do an extra +1d12+5 damage even though it makes no sense for my character".

RPGPundit

Exactly. Gamma World 1E was totally gonzo - one of my favorite games - as is TMNT, the best thing Palladium ever did. Gonzo is a style separate from munchkining, the difference is intent. One of my favorite characters from my old AD&D days was a Ranger polymorphed into a dog, played by my friend Dean - who also played an eyeless monk in OA. He couldn't talk, use weapons, or cast magic spells, though he could lick his own privates, which was some consolation I suppose... Anyway, the point was he was far less powerful than an ordinary Ranger, purely because Dean wanted to play him that way, because it was fun on its own terms.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditPowergame min-maxing and Gonzo are not the same thing, Sett. In fact they're utterly opposed.

RPGPundit

I agree with your first sentence but not the second.
Gamma World: gonzo, not powergaming
Arduin: gonzo, heavy powergaming
Rifts: gonzo, even heavier powergaming
Synnibar: gonzo, your guy can deal millions of damage

The connection isn't automatic, but it is sure there. Most people who supplemented their D&D campaigns with Arduin material, for example, did it for two reasons - awesome (sometimes in the teenage sense... "Dude, my crit totally tore off his buttocks") and for increasing character power ("Dude, my character is a star-powered mage and she can cast mondo-powerful spells!"). In the minds of many adolescents, these are often one and the same.

Same goes double for lazerzswordz and robotz in fantasy environments

Quote from: MelanI agree with your first sentence but not the second.
Gamma World: gonzo, not powergaming
Arduin: gonzo, heavy powergaming
Rifts: gonzo, even heavier powergaming
Synnibar: gonzo, your guy can deal millions of damage

The connection isn't automatic, but it is sure there. Most people who supplemented their D&D campaigns with Arduin material, for example, did it for two reasons - awesome (sometimes in the teenage sense... "Dude, my crit totally tore off his buttocks") and for increasing character power ("Dude, my character is a star-powered mage and she can cast mondo-powerful spells!"). In the minds of many adolescents, these are often one and the same.

The man speaks wisdom. As a longtime Arduin fan, I can't pretend that there is not a long-standing correlation between 'gonzo' and powergaming.

Quote from: MelanI agree with your first sentence but not the second.
Gamma World: gonzo, not powergaming
Arduin: gonzo, heavy powergaming
Rifts: gonzo, even heavier powergaming
Synnibar: gonzo, your guy can deal millions of damage

The connection isn't automatic, but it is sure there. Most people who supplemented their D&D campaigns with Arduin material, for example, did it for two reasons - awesome (sometimes in the teenage sense... "Dude, my crit totally tore off his buttocks") and for increasing character power ("Dude, my character is a star-powered mage and she can cast mondo-powerful spells!"). In the minds of many adolescents, these are often one and the same.

You should note, I said "powergame min-maxing". There is of course a strong tradition of gonzo games where you get to do 2d4x10000000 points of damage with your portable reflex cannon.
But again, this is powergaming pure and simple.

Its not the pathetic sad powergaming of fiddling with little numbers to optimize your "character build".

RPGpundit

QuoteIts not the pathetic sad powergaming of fiddling with little numbers to optimize your "character build".

:confused:...So, what do you think about High Guard Ship construction rules?

Or G³ ?
Or FF&S?

Heaven forfend that people try to squeeze the maximum number of advantages they can from the system when creating and maintaining a character.

I'm reminded of the second series of Rome, when Octavian foreshortens his swordplay lessons with Titus Pullo. When Pullo questions his decision to stop training O replies with words to the effect of "At best I'll be an average swordsman. The cemetaries are full of average swordsman. Better to be the best, or not at all."

This is pretty much how I see the adventurers mentality. Anyone who regularly gets in to lethal encounters is likely to be doing every damn thing they can to make sure that they are the ones who win. Anything else would be like slow suicide. Optimisation is just a systemic represenatation of a person focussing on their strengths to stay alive. It has nothing to do with fidelity to character concept, which is a mutable thing that can easily be adapted to any kind of build.

Well, Pundy's from the humanities, right? They'll never understand our obsession with small numbers ;)

I mean, fuck, I know he can´t be bothered with actually putting effort into his tactical combats, but if he wants to stay the "Champion of the Mainstream", he better change his stance, that would be fitting for all those lazy -ology students at the Forgery!

Quote from: mearlsI don't think CR gave players a sense that the DM should only throw encounters of a certain strength at them. I think CR gave them the vocabulary needed to say, "This encounter is unfair."

Which is all well and good. But fair is boring. Nobody ever says, "Yeah, in my last group, we had this epic fight. We all remember it in detail and have fun discussing it to this very day. What made it so great was that it was totally fair."

Seanchai

"We so pwned that critter we were supposed to pwn!
:cool:

Quote from: Settembrini"We so pwned that critter we were supposed to pwn!
:cool:

Yeah, but surely you can get that its much cooler to be able to Pwn the critter that you weren't supposed to be good enough to Pwn, right?

RPGPundit

PS: EVEN if half of you die in the Pwning...

I was being sarcastic.
As mentioned upthread, winning a combat I was supposed to win is nothing that floats my boat. It´s neccessary to do this, but it isn´t exactly fun.

Hm, I have a slight tangent that might merit its own thread.

Basically I think it's rewarding to accomplish something you were supposed to accomplish, provided you actually had to put some effort into it. And also, if you decided to take on the task.

Being presented with a series of gimmes doesn't meet these criteria, but the RPG equivalent of experience-farming might.

I'm probably the wrong person to respond to that, Eliot, as that aspect of CRPGs has always been beyond me (as does running, swimming, knitting etc -- seems I fail at producing the necessary endorphins fast enough).
In a tabletop setting, it's rather unlikely that this kind of engagement is satisfying to _all_ the participants. While some enjoy that kind of trudging through the inevitable, others would be bored beyond comprehension.

Therefore there has to be a challenge. Which I don't quite equate with risk. Gimli/Legolas bodycounting might come to mind.

Right...I suppose I'm trying to emphasize that "risk" isn't necessary for challenge. Although perhaps you could say that a job is challenging, even if you're sure you can do it, provided you're not sure exactly what you have to do or how long it'll take you.

XP farming (as I understand it; I've only done roughly similar stuff in some games like Armored Core, no MMORPGs for me) can be drudgery, but the fun part of it is that you can say, "Here, I've identified this goal, this thing I want to change about the game, and I've found a way to do it--now I just need to do that." As long as the purely mechanical process isn't too long, exercises your skills somewhat, and has some degree of inherent fun & interest, slogging your way to a goal can be pleasurable, I think, especially if it's a goal of your own invention, and your own plan.

Two hypothetical scenarios:

1) You say you want to defeat Fafnir, the dragon. You know the DM will give you maybe four sessions of party-appropriate encounters, and then you can fight Fafnir, who's also scaled appropriately. Boring!

2) You say you want to defeat Fafnir, the dragon. By whatever means (lore rolls?) the DM looks at his map & notes which are already written up, tells you approximately what to expect--in terms that if you wanted, you could translate into CRs. Then you look at your party, decide you can do it, and head off on your expedition. Interesting! Because even if you don't think there's much risk, you know the world isn't being tailored to, instead you're using your own knowledge and effort to take on the world.