Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckEh... I don't know about this. D&D was certainly not "one man's vision" given that Gygax expanded on a core of wargaming rules and the work of Dave Arneson. And of course with later editions, the list of principal designers has expanded immensely.

Champions is also not the work of one designer... I always associated the original rules with two men but there often as many as four credited for the original design.

GURPs was written by one man but *ahem* borrowed so much from Hero that I also don't think I'd call it a one man design.

Runequest is also a group effort design wise.

Traveller is one man, CoC is one man.

So of the 6 greatest RPGs ever designed (my personal list anyway) 2/3 were the result of a group.

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant rpg settings, not rulesets.  It doesn't hold for rulesets and I wasn't thinking of them.

Glorantha, Greg Stafford

Harn, the Harn guy

Empire of the Petal Throne, Prof Barker

Jorune, no idea but I think it was still one guy.

RPG settings tend to be more original, for good or ill, when the result of a single vision.

Incidentally, that doesn't mean my favourites do, I love CoC, am rather fond of the RC D&D and played Gurps for around a decade, I was posting (albeit unclearly) about original and great settings, not great rulesets nor my favourite rulesets.

Quote from: James J SkachDid you catch that?  I mean, I assume the implication is the D&D is bland, right?

What game sells the most?  What game is played the most? Ergo?

I could be wrong, but that certainly seems to be the implication.

So please, clarify.

D&D is pretty bland, out of the book, isn't that part of its strength? You can adapt it to your own settings easily.

Distinctive and original is a double edged sword, Traveller arguably is pretty bland in exactly the same way and I love that dearly.

Quote from: BalbinusD&D is pretty bland, out of the book, isn't that part of its strength? You can adapt it to your own settings easily.

Distinctive and original is a double edged sword, Traveller arguably is pretty bland in exactly the same way and I love that dearly.

Don't know Traveller...

But I played AD&D for years...never once found it bland. Still didn't when I went back at looked at OSRIC out of curiosity.

But you seem to be talking about settings, yes?  D&D doesn't really have one, though Greyhawk kinda is kinda isn't. So I'd say if you want to judge whether or not EGG was Auteur based on the setting of Greyhawk or something...well...I'd consider that en entirely different subject.

I'm more ragging on the implication that Mr. Johansen seems to be shoveling.  It's the elitist "D&D is so bland.  Yes I know alot of people choose it and play it, but there's no accounting for taste! People enjoy bland - the plebes."

And that just leads us to arguments that have come up in other threads asserting that D&D is only top-selling because, essentially, people are idiots/plebian/boring/etc, not cutting edge like those of us blah blah blah...

Quote from: BalbinusJorune, no idea but I think it was still one guy.

Andrew Leker designed it. But we should not forget the contributions of Miles Teves.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James J SkachDon't know Traveller...

But I played AD&D for years...never once found it bland. Still didn't when I went back at looked at OSRIC out of curiosity.

But you seem to be talking about settings, yes?  D&D doesn't really have one, though Greyhawk kinda is kinda isn't. So I'd say if you want to judge whether or not EGG was Auteur based on the setting of Greyhawk or something...well...I'd consider that en entirely different subject.

I'm more ragging on the implication that Mr. Johansen seems to be shoveling.  It's the elitist "D&D is so bland.  Yes I know alot of people choose it and play it, but there's no accounting for taste! People enjoy bland - the plebes."

And that just leads us to arguments that have come up in other threads asserting that D&D is only top-selling because, essentially, people are idiots/plebian/boring/etc, not cutting edge like those of us blah blah blah...

Meh, I'm playing RC because I think it's a good system, I assume those playing other editions are doing likewise.

I posted on my LJ about this as well, but to sum it up:

A designer cab design a game that only plays one way, like DitV. No matter how you try to play a game the PCs basically are always on a Crusade. No matter what the GM or players do, the only adventure is going to be crusade like. Its like one giant railroad.

Quote from: McrowIts like one giant railroad.

You really think DitV is just one giant railroad ? Interesting.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: McrowA designer cab design a game that only plays one way, like DitV. No matter how you try to play a game the PCs basically are always on a Crusade. No matter what the GM or players do, the only adventure is going to be crusade like. Its like one giant railroad.

Can I ask whether you feel the same way about (for example) Toon?  After all, no matter how you try to play the game, the PCs basically are always in a Warner Bros. cartoon.  Is it, similarly, one giant railroad?

Quote from: TonyLBCan I ask whether you feel the same way about (for example) Toon?  After all, no matter how you try to play the game, the PCs basically are always in a Warner Bros. cartoon.  Is it, similarly, one giant railroad?

While I have never seen/played toon, the way you describe it, no its not.

The difference being that toon is always in the same setting, while DitV always has the same goal.

Quote from: McrowThe difference being that toon is always in the same setting, while DitV always has the same goal.

In CoC, unless I've been playing it wrong, the pcs always have the same goal of fighting ... well you know what they are fighting. Surely CoC is not one big railroad?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: McrowThe difference being that toon is always in the same setting, while DitV always has the same goal.

I don't think I understand what you mean by the game having a goal.  Are you saying that the players must pursue a specific goal ... and if so, what is it?

Are you saying that it's railroady because the PCs must be agents of judgment?  How is that different from saying that they must be ridiculous and over-the-top toons?

Quote from: TonyLBAre you saying that it's railroady because the PCs must be agents of judgment?

that is part of it. You must be agents of judgement, you must be a zealot (as I understand it), you must rid the town of sin, there are just so many "musts" with this game that by time you get done you are going to get the same game every time. It might take a different path every time, but its still the same end result.

Quote from: McrowIt might take a different path every time, but its still the same end result.

Uh ... really?  That's not my experience.

I've GMed a session where the players decided that nobody had really sinned beyond forgiveness, and they got everyone together and basically talked through people's misunderstandings and left everyone feeling healed and cleansed.

I've played a session where I (and another Dog) decided that the issues people were bringing to us (about the election of a non-Faithful sheriff for the town) were none of our damn business and that our religious duty was to get them to quit relying on us for secular guidance (and to beat the shit out of the Dogs in our party who wanted to sway the election ... that was fun).

I've GMed a session where the players decided that they would create one scape-goat for the towns sins, tell everyone that this one kid was the root cause of all the trouble, and then remove him from the town.  The big decision was whether to just shove the (mostly innocent, deeply repentant) kid into the next town over, or whether they were obligated to shoot him in the face in the city square.  They wimped out and let him live

And I've played in a game where we Dogs decided that it was time to cast down gunpowder perdition on a sinning populace.  We about reduced the town's population by half, so that those who survived would be properly God-fearin', and not fall into such wicked ways in future.  Sometimes you have to cut off the limb (or a couple limbs) so that the body will live.

I'm hard pressed to see those all as the same ending, but maybe you can help me see where the railroad tracks lie.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm hard pressed to see those all as the same ending, but maybe you can help me see where the railroad tracks lie.

Maybe I need to play it more, but from the couple games I have played, it did seem a little repetitive despite our best efforts.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm hard pressed to see those all as the same ending, but maybe you can help me see where the railroad tracks lie.

I know I'm late to this party, but your examples prove the point: every DitV scenario must be about religious enforcers dealing with a town. There doesn't seem to be any way to handle, say, deciding to go be silver miners or run away to sea -- not and continue being the same game.

The OP's argument was that, in the interest of redressing the GM/player power imbalance, indie games like this tend to do so by disempowering the GM -- by constraining the types of play or situations the game will support -- rather than by truly empowering the players in a more open-ended system and/or built-in setting.

I'm not an indie-RPG player or GM (yet), but from what I've seen in the game store and read online I think that argument is certainly supportable as a matter of opinion. All this talk of "what is an auteur" is a big red herring.