TheRPGSite

From the Swinewatch UK-warzone-thread:

@droog: I can see the merits of all your arguments. And by promising not to be snarky in response, I´d beg you to name three or four big conceptual innovations.

Like:
There´s three types of adventure game rules. I call them three pillars of roleplaying. They were each a conceptual innovation that spawned (or catered to) adventure gaming styles and general rules layout:

- class & level (D&D)
- "I´m just a guy, but I got skills" (Traveller, RQ)
- Point buy (Fantasy Trip, Champions)


That all happened in the first several years of the hobby.

EDIT: I just pulled the example out of my ass, but Elliot pointed us to an LJ (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=68939&postcount=276) post, that went deeper into that subject. So taking that LJ post as an example, could somebody categorize Thematic Games?

Although I´m willing to learn here, I´m asserting that there are no conceptual innovations since 2000. Prove me wrong.

No going for since 2000, but thinking of some more conceptual changes (without making value judgements). Some of these are very old, but I think they do represent changes and progressions.

* Metaplots
* 1 player, multiple characters
* Dice pools
* Player buy-in
* Lifepath/character prehistory
* Psychological impact rules
* Social impact rules
* Dispensing with a gameboard
* Exploding dice.
* Scaling (same system used at different scales for wargaming/RPing)
* Universal systems (explicitly designed as such).

Yeah, that´s all adventure gaming stuff.

We want to know the same stuff for Thematic Games.
Like, what has been added since Pantheon.

First of all, I'm probably not the guy to do this. I haven't an innovative bone in my body, and I can't do game design. I can only go on an impression formed by reading and playing several of these games. I've got only a limited amount of games, because I don't have enough money to justify madly spending it on more games than I've time to play.

So I'm going to start with John's work. I've made an edited version highlighting techniques probably most associated with indie/Forgie/hippie/thematic/swine games:

Hero Points – James Bond 007 (1983), Ghostbusters (1986).
Dramatic modifiers to resolution – Champions (1981), Paranoia or Toon (both 1984).
Mechanics for social resolution – James Bond 007 (1983).
Directed Rewards – Marvel Superheroes (1984).
Instant Rewards – James Bond 007 (1983).
Scene Framing – Torg (1990). Theatrix (1993).
Meta-game control/Director Stance for players – Ars Magica (1987). Prince Valiant (1989), Theatrix (1993).
Freeform Character Traits – Over the Edge (1992)
Player right to introduce conflict – Champions (1981), Ars Magica, Prince Valiant, and Theatrix.
Relationship Mapping – Vampire: The Masquerade (1991), "Sorcerer's Soul" supplement for Sorcerer (2001), Dogs in the Vineyard (2004).
Bangs – Ars Magica's Whimsy Cards, explicitly appears as a GM technique in Sorcerer (1998).

NEXT (?) – what have the Forge ever done for us?

Relationship mapping has been around since Traveller. But I´m betting ion Braunsteins being mapped also.

Quote from: SettembriniYeah, that´s all adventure gaming stuff.

We want to know the same stuff for Thematic Games.
Like, what has been added since Pantheon.

* I don't like metaplot, but I would regard that as a 'thematic' development.
* Troupe style play (not in the WW sense per se) I would regard as a thematic development.
* Player buy in, I would regard as a thematic development.
* Lifepath, thematic.
* Psych impact, thematic.
* Social impact, thematic.
*Arguably, dispensing with a gameboard is the most fundamental thematic development of RPGs.

Quote from: SettembriniRelationship mapping has been around since Traveller. But I´m betting ion Braunsteins being mapped also.

Sort of in Traveller, if you're talking about the contact and NPC card deck system.

This might be easier with a list of release dates...

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/byyear/2001.html

OK, folks, you showed us some pretty neat stuff.
Let us not be derailed by bean counting with dates and the real "firsts" as long as they aren´t of utmost importance. (I know I started it, but I was a fool in opening that can of worms. It´s a knowitals pastime, and we could surely spend hours debating some of the stuff. )

Please tell us about the "Explosion of Creativity" that happened from 2002 onward. My claim is still, that Most Forge-inspired games are basically me-too products and not very original. That doesn´t mean they aren´t playable or fun, but it is a stab against the claim of creativity, originality and intellectualism that came up again very recently.

Are there generalizable styles emerging in Thematic Gaming?

Are you only looking for individual elements or do unique combinations count?

Honestly I don't have enough familiarity with the forge to say much about them but in a more 'centrist' position I think combination of older elements can lead to a new overall whole. I'd regard UA as innovative, even though none of its individual elements are, for example.

Well, if you can "only" bring up new combinations of older elements, to prove originality, creativity and intellectualism, go ahead.

I think what the Forge has really given birth to is a wave of games that use various forms of stakes-setting (collaborative pre-narration) and narration-trading (giving various people the authority to narrate outcomes of resolution) as explicit parts of the written mechanics.

Not all work that way. Other games may have had those elements. Some Forge games may have other (original or borrowed) innovations. But those are what IMO characterize the "central mass" of those games.

The other major element common to many Forge games is flag-framing combined with "bangs"--that is, the idea that characters should be created with elements (like kickers in Sorcerer, BITs in Burning Wheel) which are explicitly intended to be introducd by the GM or others with GM-type powers.

Same caveats apply.

Can we reach consensus, that those two technique-classes put a rather high demand on qualitative and quantitative input from all players?

I think I concur, but you might want to see if others even agree that those are the major common elements of Forge-type thematic "story games".

However (if I say so myself) I think I've hit it; basically, what those games offer is, in Forge terms, various movements into "non-Vanilla Narrativism". That is, if you look at the entry "Vanilla Narrativism" at the Forge, you see that its opposite, within the "Nar" camp, would be games that employ notable use of "Director Stance" for players, atypical distribution of GM tasks, verbalizing the "Premise" in abstract terms, overt organization of narration, or improvised additions to the setting or situations. What I wrote above is basically saying the same thing.

You could also say that Forge games are typically expressions of Ron's skepticism (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=800.msg7175#msg7175) that

QuoteI do not think that a story can be reliably created, with players as co-creators, via the means of Actor Stance, continuous suspension of disbelief, immersion (as narrowly defined), or anything similar.

I.e., in order to reliably accomplish their "Nar-ness", they explicitly call for players to assume OOC stances, break SOD, and/or give up immersion. This may be a quantity thing; nobody thinks you can play a game without at some point doing those things. (E.g., you aren't in-character when you call your friends and ask if they'd like to play such-and-such a game.) So if you want to nit-pick, you can say those games go past some semi-subjective limit in the use of those things, particularly in writing them into the rules.

If I've got my RPG-Genetics right, a lot of that comes from Universalis, which is a descendant of Once Upon a Time and Pantheon, probably passed from there into the first crop of designed-at-the-Forge games, and thence into games such as The Mountain Witch. The other major ingredient commonly found, flag-framing, came from Sorcerer (probably as a refinement of some other game, most likely Champions) and is now pretty much de riguer.

Note that Mike Holmes doesn't really consider Universalis to be an RPG.

Ron Edwards identifies two 'superfamilies' of Forge narr games, which I think agree substantially with your analysis.

QuoteOn the left-hand side, one superfamily is rooted in stuff like Over the Edge and Cyberpunk and goes on through the "door" of Sorcerer, branching apart from there. It includes Dogs in the Vineyard.

On the right-hand side, the other superfamily is rooted in stuff like Story Engine and Soap, and it goes on through the "door" of Universalis, branching apart rather drastically from there. It includes (via MLWM) Polaris.
..............................
On the side which includes Dogs....what their characters want to do and start to do cannot be overriden or even mechanically modified by anyone else at the table. If you state, "He kisses her," and the group goes into the Conflict Resolution system, it's established, the kiss is both intended and initiated.

On the side which includes Polaris....If you state, "He kisses her," then eventually, the way the scene works out, it's at least possible that he never even thought about or tried to kiss her.

I thought of that family tree, but I don't really see a connection to my analysis. In my mind, that division has more to do with narration-trading vs. pre-narration, and generally the level of consensus called for in the rules, than it does with distributed/shared narration vs. flag framing.

What I was thinking was that it bears out the idea that a formalising of narration (who gets to say what and when) is one of the bases of Forge design.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou could also say that Forge games are typically expressions of Ron's skepticism (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=800.msg7175#msg7175) that

QuoteI do not think that a story can be reliably created, with players as co-creators, via the means of Actor Stance, continuous suspension of disbelief, immersion (as narrowly defined), or anything similar.

I.e., in order to reliably accomplish their "Nar-ness", they explicitly call for players to assume OOC stances, break SOD, and/or give up immersion.

Thanks for that quote.  In  a discussion on RPGnet (that you were also involved in), Vincent Baker told me here (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=5654018&postcount=169):

QuoteIf you're playing and you address premise, you're playing narrativist.

The only definition of narrativist play is "we play and we address premise." If you're playing a game where sometimes you do and sometimes you don't address premise, that only means that sometimes you're playing narrativist and sometimes you aren't.

...and, more importantly...

QuoteExactly. Creating an interesting setup and then playing it out strictly by the internal logic of its characters and setting is a time-honored way to play narrativist.

As I told Vincent in that thread, I think the road to their "El Dorado" is an interesting set-up followed by playing it out within the internal logic of the setting and characters.  The key to Dogs in the Vineyard, as I see it, isn't the conflict resolution mechanics but the character and town creation components that produce characters and a situation almost guaranteed to generate an interesting situation no matter how it plays out.

Quote from: droogWhat I was thinking was that it bears out the idea that a formalising of narration (who gets to say what and when) is one of the bases of Forge design.

Gotcha. I'd add that typically the formalisation includes putting a lot of OOC-narration-authority in the hands of players, by one means or another.

John, right. But we're looking at the structure of Forge games, as opposed to the putatively-observed output of them. Part of Forge theory has come to say that people are often "playing Nar" even if they don't realize it. That's led to some heated debate but we can leave it aside for now and note that Forge games typically & deliberately include the types of mechanics I listed above.

Quote from: John MorrowAs I told Vincent in that thread, I think the road to their "El Dorado" is an interesting set-up followed by playing it out within the internal logic of the setting and characters.  The key to Dogs in the Vineyard, as I see it, isn't the conflict resolution mechanics but the character and town creation components that produce characters and a situation almost guaranteed to generate an interesting situation no matter how it plays out.

Well, I'd agree with you overall, even while noting that what makes the game distinctively Forge-y is the conflict resolution and other elements of distributed GMing, as well as bits of "flag-framing" guidelines that are designed to make the game "in your face" by deliberately pushing the players' buttons. And then there's the absolutely refusal to give the players a clear metaphysical framework, which is also supposed to give them the power to define their own morality or something (i.e., they can't just make legalistic decisions based on an embedded moral code). All of this is supposed to facilitate Vincent's idea of Narrativism, I guess; it's not clear which of them you could drop and still accomplish whatever it is he set out to do. Unfortunately, they all pretty much kill my sense of immersion and I feel they take all the air out of any decisions I make in the game.

Even if you only do what you suggest, you're still doing some OOC work which arguably validates the theory. But in my experience, the products of the Forge design school go way beyond that and tend to break immersion and require OOC stances at many points in the game. For some games (e.g. Polaris, Shab al-Hiri Roach), it's not a problem as I can just reorient myself to approach the activity as a "storytelling game" or "parlour game"; in other games it's pretty disastrous. I'm not sure why.

Let's look at what I earlier called the first wave:

2001
Sorcerer

2002
InSpectres
Universalis
Dust Devils
Trollbabe
Donjon
The Riddle of Steel (?)

2003
My Life with Master
Primetime Adventures
Burning Wheel Revised


Am I missing any big ones?

I think it's pretty clear that the 2002 crop are all playing with the factors you talk about, Elliot. InSpectres in particular breaks the fourth wall very decisively, but all of them have distancing techniques. They're very consciously playing with the relationship between success, failure and narrating outcomes.

It looks like 2003 is the year of experimenting with overt structure. BWR is the exception, but it's interesting to see what Luke's done with Burning Empires in that light.

QuoteNote that Mike Holmes doesn't really consider Universalis to be an RPG.

Funnily enough, I've never felt a great urge to play Universalis. It's the only one above I haven't played.

Capes, Donjon, and tRoS are all 2002. I've only read tRoS, which basically falls into the flag-framing category (or allegedly falls into it; I think there's some controversy over this).

Now for the big question behind the original post: have there been any major innovations since that initial crop, or have later games basically been various reconfigurations of narration-sharing and flag-framing?

Not that there'd anything wrong with that: as post-D&D RPG development shows, you can get a lot of mileage out of variation within a few key parameters (e.g. GM-player divide, character continuity/advancement).

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, I'd agree with you overall, even while noting that what makes the game distinctively Forge-y is the conflict resolution and other elements of distributed GMing, as well as bits of "flag-framing" guidelines that are designed to make the game "in your face" by deliberately pushing the players' buttons.

That's fine.  It's just helping me understand why they took the path they did.  I guess it makes sense based on those assumptions.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd then there's the absolutely refusal to give the players a clear metaphysical framework, which is also supposed to give them the power to define their own morality or something (i.e., they can't just make legalistic decisions based on an embedded moral code). All of this is supposed to facilitate Vincent's idea of Narrativism, I guess; it's not clear which of them you could drop and still accomplish whatever it is he set out to do. Unfortunately, they all pretty much kill my sense of immersion and I feel they take all the air out of any decisions I make in the game.

I'm pretty sure I could do immersion with the setting and characters and even the ambiguous metaphysical framework, and I think the "in your face" nature of the milieu is going to shine through so long as they players create characters designed to engage the setting and situation.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenEven if you only do what you suggest, you're still doing some OOC work which arguably validates the theory.

Well, character creation is generally OOC work to at least some degree, so I'm not sure you can ever escape that.  But I think the key there is to confine it to the set up.  It's like that old computer game "Life" where pixels "live" or "die" based on how many surrounding pixels are "alive".  You set up the field and then just let it run and see what happens.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut in my experience, the products of the Forge design school go way beyond that and tend to break immersion and require OOC stances at many points in the game. For some games (e.g. Polaris, Shab al-Hiri Roach), it's not a problem as I can just reorient myself to approach the activity as a "storytelling game" or "parlour game"; in other games it's pretty disastrous. I'm not sure why.

Yeah, that's the interesting point to me and it explains a great deal about why Forge games seem so unappealing to me.  Is this because there are no real voices of immersion in that design community?  Or are they just like Vincent, who seems to be able to immerse (his descriptions of what he does sound like he does to me), but also seem to have little trouble switching in and out of it?

Okay, so:

2004
Dogs in the Vineyard
Conspiracy of Shadows

2005
Capes
Polaris
The Mountain Witch
Breaking the Ice
Under the Bed

2006
The Shab-al-Hiri Roach
Burning Empires
Agon
Shock
It Was a Mutual Decision
Don't Rest Your Head


DitV is in many ways the culmination of all the previous development. For instance, the basic set-up is influenced by Trollbabe, but Ron doesn't provide a systematic way of creating the situations a trollbabe wanders into.

CoS I'm not sure about – somebody else will have to comment.

I think what you see after 2004 is the effect of all the competitions, for better or for worse. You're still seeing experimentation in mechanics, structure, character creation and the role of the GM.

There seems to be a tiny movement towards exploring subjects other than the usual fare (BtI, UtB, Roach, IWaMD). IWaMD is additionally an experiment in format.

I'm only familiar with about one game per year (or 1.17/year).

Hey, wait a sec. Don't Rest Your Head?

Anyway, of the later crop, I know Polaris, TMW, and Roach. And all use various varieties of stakes-setting/narration trading, with Polaris also having flags. (Though, at least when I read it, I didn't pick up on their use to generate conflict or even as a continuity tool--somebody had to point out how things got onto your sheet and how they might be used.) Polaris also has the most interesting, if also the most confusing, method of regulating the "who can say what when". What I like about it, in principle (only did a little bit of play) is that it pretty much eschews all pretense of being anything other than a mechanic for regulating player interaction, thus almost pure storytelling.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHey, wait a sec. Don't Rest Your Head?

Well, maybe.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnyway, of the later crop, I know Polaris, TMW, and Roach. And all use various varieties of stakes-setting/narration trading....Polaris also has the most interesting, if also the most confusing, method of regulating the "who can say what when". What I like about it, in principle (only did a little bit of play) is that it pretty much eschews all pretense of being anything other than a mechanic for regulating player interaction, thus almost pure storytelling.

Yeah, in a sense it's a very pure outcome of Forge design practice.

I think it's now at a stage where people are playing with the big concepts to see what can be done. Consolidation, if you like. For instance, the addition of structured campaign rules to BE, or the team roleplaying in IWaMD.

I'd say that's a logical outcome of the minor flood of designs that came out of the Ronnies, Game Chef etc.

Agon may or may not be the first gamist Forge game since Elfs. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call it 'thematic', but I've only played it once. It seems to be built for competition between players (while characters ostensibly cooperate).

Agon is a Rune clone.

Quote from: Erik BoielleAgon is a Rune clone.

Maybe in concept, though I don't think it's got a rotating GM. But the rules are very different as far as I can tell.

Quote from: droogMaybe in concept, though I don't think it's got a rotating GM. But the rules are very different as far as I can tell.

A Rune Heartbreaker then.

:-)

Quote from: droog2002
[ .... ]
Capes

Say what?  No man, no.  Dunno where you got that date.  I'm pretty sure that Capes was released in january 2005.

Quote from: TonyLBSay what?  No man, no.  Dunno where you got that date.  I'm pretty sure that Capes was released in january 2005.

Damn! I took Elliot's word for it. I'll go and edit it.

Sorry about that. I was working off http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/alphabetical/C.html and http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/byyear/2002.html

Seemed off but I didn't think about it too much. Somebody should let John know.

About Agon...actually the connection to Rune helped me find a couple reviews through Google which have got me interested in the game for the first time. At least the concept of an adversarial budget that's impacted by the GM/Player actions is something I've been thinking about.

It's a pretty good game. I know one group that's playing it a lot.

Tony, if you're still around, what's your view on this? What were your immediate influences when you designed Capes?

Game-wise?  Amber had a big part just from being a large part of my experience (and convincing me that balls-to-the-wall competitive play could be fun) but I didn't lift any mechanics from it.  I'd purchased My Life with Master partway through design ... the elegant mathematics of which were inspiration in spirit, if not much lifted in practice.  Most of the actual techniques came from people who bounced ideas back and forth with me in the Forge forum.  It was only after I published that I made a concerted effort to pick up some of the other indie games and dissect them to figure out how they worked.

My next game will owe a huge debt to PTA and TSoY and DitV, but the first one didn't.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSorry about that. I was working off http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/alphabetical/C.html and http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/byyear/2002.html

Seemed off but I didn't think about it too much. Somebody should let John know.

Fixed now.

Quote from: SettembriniWell, if you can "only" bring up new combinations of older elements, to prove originality, creativity and intellectualism, go ahead.

Its only the whole basis of the renaissance :P

Now you are comparing the Forge to the Rennaissance?

Oh boy...

Quote from: SettembriniNow you are comparing the Forge to the Rennaissance?

Oh boy...

No, a combination of dispirate qualities coming together and resulting in something new despite none of the individual contributing elements being true.
That.

"being true"? I think you mean "truly original".

In any case I think the Forge has arguably been a sort of "singularity" (with apologies to Vernor Vinge) where a bunch of preexisting trends and ideas were pushed together and started to take on a life of their own, becoming a core of a new movement instead of the periphery of an old one.

The question I think is whether this will lead to a sustainable period of innovation (not just in design but in play: you can always make up variations, the question is whether people will find enough new to bother to play them), or if the games are just going to turn out to be seen as "merely" variations on the basic idea of having rules to regulate narrative control, plus maybe having some flags or kickers that the players are exhorted to be mindful of in their narration.

By that I mean to imply a mild tu quoque toward critics who keep saying that most RPGs prior to The Forge were just variations on D&D. Indeed, most wargames up through the 80's and beyond were just variations on the Avalon Hill classics (for operational/strategic games), Panzerblitz (or really Tactical Game 3) for tactical games, and Diplomacy/Kingmaker for diplomatic games. Yet they've maintained interest as a core genre for new titles for decades, even while people appreciated the innovation of games such as Cosmic Encounter, We the People, or Columbia's block games.

Well yes, that´s because they added value per product.

They went through the drill of researching the historical facts, coming up with a different board, prinitng it and supplying new scenarios.
Same with Adv.Games: New Maps, new Illos, new Crunch, new NPCs...etc.

In a deragatory way, Forgers sometimes speak of stuff like that as "just" new toys.
I think the toy approach is very valid, and I accuse recent Forge-derived Thematic Games to lack strongly in the toy division. It´s neither constant innovation, nor is it constantly providing new toys.

Well, wargames also add value through the development of novel systems, apart from research. The benchmark for wargame systems is the ability to represent a dynamic of the situation. So there have been improvements over the years, as well as emphases on different dynamics and just plain different opinions about how the dynamics operate. (E.g. one wargame basically has the English winning at Agincourt because they shoot well; another shows that they won because the French lacked mobility and flexibility.)

German-type games or Euros also add value through their systems, though the benchmark is different: inherently interesting mechanics for competitive interaction.

RPGs are caught in between, especially so when the mechanics are only functional when supplemented by mutual social understanding, at every stage in the game. That is, the limits on what anyone can propose as stakes, or narrate after gaining authority to do so, are a property of the social relations of the group, which makes the rules themselves a rather weak tool for transmission of a playstyle.

That's IMO, though. It remains to be seen if people will start seeing a sameness in the experiences offered by these new-style games.

QuoteIt remains to be seen if people will start seeing a sameness in the experiences offered by these new-style games.

Ultimately, this ends the discussion.

But one might weigh in, that sub-sub-cultural reasons could stabilize this development. In such a way, that the audience is determined to stick to the same-old-same-old, because of personal identification.
This definitely happened to some games and hobbys, maybe it´s always a factor.
And it´s one of the arguments prominently used against Adventure Games of a certain ilk. So it´s very fitting to cast that question back:

If Game X is supposed to be all about marketing and sub-cultural identity, why isn´t that also true for Thematic Game Y?
What do you do do prevent that?

Quote from: SettembriniIf Game X is supposed to be all about marketing and sub-cultural identity, why isn´t that also true for Thematic Game Y?
What do you do do prevent that?

Stay away from subcultures?

The approach I'd like to take on this question is to lay out the features of Pantheon, then compare the features of the Indie games that have been mentioned. I have no direct expreience of Pantheon, but based on Abyssal Maw's description and the RPGnet review:

Pantheon

• One-shot play
• Defined Scenario
• GM-less
• Free narration within specific procedures
• Bidding to resolve contested points
• Scoring based on appropriate story elements

Does that sum things up to everyone's satisfaction? Anyone more familiar with the game, let me know if I'm missing/mischaracterizing any elements.

So how do Forge/indie/thematic games relate to Pantheon? Well, I can definitely see influence in some key concepts, such as alternate distribution of narrational authority and short-play, more quick and focused games. But I'm not even sure Pantheon qualifies as "Thematic" (or whatever term you wanna use for it). I don't know much about the actual scenarios presented, but unless they're pregnant with theme in a way that's not obvious from the descriptions I've read, they seem just like simple "achtypical" situations based on different genres (horror, mafia, etc). There's scoring based on genre emulation, sure, but that's not Thematic necessarily. When I talk about Thematic gaming I'm talking about games that deliberately set out to address and explore moral/psychological.human issues. Are other folks using the term differently? 'Cause otherwise, I don't particularly see the "thematic" in Pantheon.

So what's come along since? Let's separate further developments into refinements and innovations. Settembrini seems to be belittling or at least marginalizing refinement, in the sense that he's not recognizing it as sufficient to give a game merit. But refining a process is just as important as originating it; there are only so many original ideas yet countless possible improvements.

Let's look at it in terms of refinement (and I'll just cover innovation along the way, game by game). Going down the list for Pantheon:

From my understanding, My Life With Master, The Mountain Whitch, and Shab-al-Hiri roach have all sharpened the One-shot and Defined Scenario innovations into razor-focus. Clearly a lot of Forge games have adopted the idea of short (or at least short-er) term play, but these games thoroughly embraced it. I can't comment on their specific mechanics of procedures, but from all reports they seem to represent a significant improvement in gameplay experience from Pantheon.

In the GM-less department, the front-runners are Universalis and Capes. Haven't played Uni, but Capes (from my play of Capes and from description of Pantheon) seems to run like a far more sophisiticated version of Pantheon, and with greater flexibility, via abandoning the fixed-scenario setup. Capes sports a sophisticated negotiation mechanic over Pantheon's rather simple one, wired into a competitive framework that brings out exciting gameplay. Also, Capes' goal-setting rules are a significant advance over Pantheon's cruder means of narrative constraint (Free narration within specific procedures), and I'd say represent a genuine innovation.

I ended up covering Bidding to resolve contested points regarding Capes above, but it's not the only game to tackle that issue. Dogs in the Vinyard is a front-runner here. Its poker-style bidding system attaches weight to statements about the story/game world/SIS/whatever, and provides a neat combination of random rolling and the strategy of point-allocation/bidding. It provides just the framework required for addressing its theme, moral judgments, by allowing you to stick it out or back down, thereby declaring how far you'll go for X principle. Pantheon doesn't have anything remotely like that. It's a system that's made up of a lot of individual elements that aren't in themselves unique (freeform traits, dice pools, bidding elements, hitpoint-less wounding), but I'd argue that they all add up to innovation in their implementation.

It's worth noting, while on the subject of bidding, that I'm entirely unfamiliar with Amber DRP, which Tony cites as a major inspiration for his negotiated-fiction-control game. If any insight from ADRP can shed light on the discussion, by all means, share!

Sticking with Dogs for a minute, I'll add that it has one distinctive feature completely alien to Pantheon: the Town Creation rules. In general, we could call this Situation Generation. Sorceror is notable for this too. The basic concept is, this is a game about a theme, here's how to engineer a situation to really highlight and energize that theme. R-maps, flag framing, etc. all fall under this umbrella. It is, of course, the Thematic equivalent to Dungeon design.:) I'd argue that this is the primary innovation of Thematic games over the last few years; giving you tools to have games with the themes you're after without having them fall flat. Just like Adventure gaming gives you the tools to have Adventures without having them suck. That's really the benchmark, and I contend that Pantheon as described doesn't cut it for my, and I'm guessing most everyone else's, Thematic needs.

A minor note: there's one Pantheon trait above, Scoring based on Story, that I'm not sure has any parallel in the modern crop of Thematic games. This is probably because it's a simple and limited concept based on a very narrow idea of how to tell a story. Not necessarily that it isn't just right for the game, but it doesn't provide the interpretive depth that Thematic gaming requires. The closes thing I can think of is Capes' story tokens, but those are a usable resource rather than an end-of-game prise/ranking. I guess Tony DID work out a scoring system to award "winners" for con play, so maybe that's a good parallel. But a minor one.

Peace,
-Joel

PS: On the subject of "Toys:" I would, once again, lift up Capes as a game that provides fun toys up the wazoo. Messing about with poker chips and index cards with opposing dice on them and slapping click'n'lock character modules together are all very visceral and playful and fun. As soon as I'd played my first game of capes I went out and bought a plastic case to convert into a Capes Kit with all the bells and whistles in it. Sure, Tony doesn't actually publish a set of story and dept tokens, or Official Muse of Fire Conflict Cards with fancy production values. . .but surely that's a product of small vs. large press, and the financial differences that entails? And he does offer a set of laminated dry-erase click'n'locks, which I think is just damn cool.

Also, if you're including "new crunch" under toys, I'd include Dogs and it's rais-and-see dice mechanic. But you (Sett) have made it clear that you're unimpressed with any and all Forge dice mechanics, so I imagine that'll be far from persuasive here.;)

Thanks for this post!
Marvelous!
Indeed, the funky dice mechanics doen´t impress me much.

But the actual refinement has been shown convincingly.

Thank you again.

So we can say: Several post-Sorcerer Games refined Pantheon´s innovations.;)

Is Pantheon thematic?
I´d say yes.
You can use Narrative Cagematch in that way, scoring  is optional.

Has anybody on this thread actually played Pantheon? Or even seen it?

Settembrini, I notice in your list of games you have played that you have not played any games you would call thematic.

If you're looking for forerunners, I'd add Prince Valiant, Over the Edge, Soap, and several others, which again are given their due in Ron's essays.

QuoteSettembrini, I notice in your list of games you have played that you have not played any games you would call thematic.

That was my top ten. not my games played.

I own and have played Pantheon several times.

Quote from: SettembriniI own and have played Pantheon several times.

Do you like it?

Well, as a leisure activity it was okay.

And the bidding mechanism is as funky as your average die comparison mechanism.

It´s about the same fun I had when playing Activity, although Activity is a lot sillier when alcohol is involved.

But it nowwhere came near to be in any way the sort of fun I can have wih my other RPGs.

It was new and different then, but not mind-blowingly so. My experiences with other games where along the same lines. It did the same sort of fun for me as the others. And when reading Actual Plays, I cannot see that much of a differrence.
Especially as the player input is so hugely important. It all depends on the participants. And that thing I can also pull off with Narrative Cagematch.

But you definitely convinced me of the refinement that happened.

Oh, fuck--I just spotted a rather embarrassing and significant typo in my post! When I said "System Generation," I really meant to say "Situation generation." It's corrected now. :duh:

Anyway, I think that was one of the most important points in my post (so of course I mangled it). Situation generation, as in "here's how to engineer a situation in your game so it applies pressure in just the right ways to address your theme" is probably the most significant development in "Thematic" gaming. And it's not present in Pantheon. So it's either a whole-cloth innovation, or derived from somewhere else. Anyone know of any good forerunning text for this? The GM section in Over the Edge has hints at this; at least it describes Jonathan Tweet's GMing methodology for that game very well so that the reader can duplicate it, though I'm not sure exactly how thematic Jon's trying to be there. And it seems to me pretty rudimentary compared to Dogs towns, or even Sorceror R-maps.

Which brings me to a deeper point: I'd like to know, Sett, what you believe is important about the distinction between "refinement" and "innovation," and where you draw the line between the two. Because what I'm picking up from you is that the requirement for "innovation" is arising wholly on its own without building on anything that came before. You sound like you're conceding on the lesser "refinements" but sticking to your guns on the "innovation" issue.

Whereas I'm looking at things in a more fluid manner. If a "refinement" improves on an existing technique in a sufficiently large and startling way, then it's an innovation. Mozart definitely innovated in the field of music, though he definitely used the same accepted musical structure as everyone else, for example. Thus I'm willing to let My Life with Master be considered a mere refinement (bearing in mind, I haven't read it) of the One-shot, defined scenario aspects of Pantheon, whereas I call Capes' and DitV's conflict resolution genuine innovations over Pantheon's bidding, if indeed they're derived from it (and bearing in mind, I also haven't read that.)

Which is a significant thing to consider, too: a given game may or may not have been influenced by Pantheon. Ok sure, maybe influenced ina general way, like how all comics artists are influenced by Jack Kirby whether they know it or not, and all RPGs are based to some degree on wargaming. But not necessarily related directly, such that we can discuss it meaningfully. Tony has said that his game is based on Amber, so Pantheon may not even enter into it at all. I can only guess what Vincent's influences are.

On another note, I'm very interested, Sett, in why you consider Pantheon thematic. It doesn't sound very thematic to me, so I'm curious what you see in it from direct experience and actual play, that causes you to label it so.

Peace,
-Joel

PS When you say "Narrative Cagematch," is that just your term for this kind of game, or is it an actual product? It's becoming unclear.

QuotePS When you say "Narrative Cagematch," is that just your term for this kind of game, or is it an actual product? It's becoming unclear.

"Pantheon and other games" is the title of the book.

"Narrative Cagematch" is the title of the rules system used for all games in the book.

More on why I felt it´s thematic later.

Thanks, that clears things up.