So, I'm splitting off a discussion of game design from "The Error of Game Design Priorities" to talk about the basis for design.  

Quote from: RPGPunditThat "small set" is certainly much less small than, say, "Forge games which have been as successful".  That one would be a set of ZERO.

So I will take our experience over your theories which have never proven any success, any day.

Well, as I see it, you don't have to choose one or the other of experience or theory.  I'm in favor of keeping the successful games in print.  I have no desire to see D&D cancelled.  The same goes for Vampire, GURPS, the HERO System, and so forth.  If people buy them, keep selling them.  

The question is, though, what should new games be like?  

I'm of the radical opinion that new games should do something new.  This has jack-all to do with following any particular theory.  I dislike GNS as a theory, and I'd be happy with a new game design that runs counter to it.  However, whatever it is, a new game should try to do something different than what has gone before.  



Now, this is risky.  By definition, if something is new, then it isn't a proven success.  And indeed, more than 99% of new games aren't going to be successful.  However, that is how the current successful games came about.  In 1975, there was no established wisdom that fantasy games about exploring dungeons were a good model.  Yet D&D was a success.  Similarly, in 1990, there were no successful games where the PCs were evil monsters.  It ran counter to all the heroic traditions of games.  Yet Vampire: The Masquerade was vastly more successful than all the D&D clones of before and after it put together.  

So, for example, one could say that the only successful game at bringing in kids is the red box Basic D&D.  That's true enough -- but so what?  Basic D&D has already been done.  If you think that's the only good model, then just lobby to keep that game in print.  I would approve of that.  But if you want to talk about doing a new game for kids, then it should do something new.  Maybe a different setting, maybe different mechanics, maybe diceless, maybe card-using, whatever.  

Contrary to you, I have no problem whatsoever with theories.  Theories are good -- they lead to new designs.  Multiple theories should be put out, and all of them tested.  The problem is dogma.  If someone follows a set of principles regardless of what their playtesting and experimenting shows, then design suffers.  This is equally true of revolutionary dogma and conservative dogma.

I'm presented with new things every time I run a game. My players are endlessly inventive, and continually catch me flat footed. I don't need new game designs to have new games.

-clash

Quote from: jhkimI'm of the radical opinion that new games should do something new.

Well, at least someone out there agrees with me.

The problem isn't that we want new games to be new. The problem arises in what aspect of the game the newness applies to.

It's how we end up with fifty settings all using d20 all claiming to be "new" games. Nothing's wrong with d20, but new setting doesn't equal new game for me.

I'm still trying to pin down what I feel contributes to the newness of a game. I'm in that crappy position of "know it when I see it" but I can't define it yet. It's not just system mechanics, it's not just setting, and it's not necessarily interaction, since that's highly group-dependent.

Gah. If I figure it out any time soon, I'll let y'all know.

Quote from: flyingmiceI'm presented with new things every time I run a game. My players are endlessly inventive, and continually catch me flat footed. I don't need new game designs to have new games.

And great.  If all publishing of new RPG books were to stop today, then people could continue to do new things with the books they have.  

However, if you're going to publish a new RPG book, then I think you should at least try to do something new.  For example, I am interested with In Harm's Way because it is treating a subject which hasn't been done -- or at least not since 1983 with Jon Williams' Privateers & Gentlemen.  So it's something fairly new.  

Certainly I wouldn't slam it by the logic of "No Napoleonic naval RPG has ever been successful" -- because that's clearly false logic.  Is it going to be the next big thing?  Probably not, but I still approve of trying it.

Also, while I am for making new things available, does that also mean you have to restrict what was already there?

That's the thing about broad vs. focused games. Doing what a successful game does minus something isn't offering anything new. Doing what a successful game does plus something does add something new. Therefore, the trend should lean towards broader and broader games, not narrower and narrower.

Well, I can at least appreciate the fact that you've seperated theory from dogma. Most existing RPG theories are indeed actually dogma.

As far as new games, I'm all for em'. I disagree that they have to "do something new", though. They probably just have to do something interesting in a fun way. It *could* be something new, but I'd even go for some genre or approach we just haven't thought about yet-- or an amazing setting.  

The real success of Gen Con this year as far as I'm concerned was Faery's Tale. But even then, this is a game you could play with kids, but definitely not a game kids would really care about playing with each other.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, if you're going to publish a new RPG book, then I think you should at least try to do something new.  For example, I am interested with In Harm's Way because it is treating a subject which hasn't been done -- or at least not since 1983 with Jon Williams' Privateers & Gentlemen.  So it's something fairly new.

But this doesn't contradict Pundit's point, or advance your claim that one doesn't have to choose between experience and theory.

I don't want to play down the innovation in Clash's game (I haven't even seen it) but there's a big difference between using the same basic design premises to address a new subject, on the one hand, and developing premises and paradigms which are entirely new.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut this doesn't contradict Pundit's point, or advance your claim that one doesn't have to choose between experience and theory.

I don't want to play down the innovation in Clash's game (I haven't even seen it) but there's a big difference between using the same basic design premises to address a new subject, on the one hand, and developing premises and paradigms which are entirely new.

There isn't any innovation in my games - I'm not an innovator. I leave that to those with the talent to pull it off. I just pulled things from a bunch of different sources and made them work together. The bggest difference between Privateers and Gentlemen and In Harm's Way is emphasis - Williams designed an awesome simulation of Napoleonic Naval warfare. I designed an emulation of Napoleonic Naval fiction. Otherwise, the differences are far less important than the similarities.

-clash

I agree that if you're going to make new games (as in publishing) it's worth actually offering something new.  That could be a new setting, or a new game mechanic, or even an entirely new kind of game.  It might just be a new way of looking at an existing game / setting / etc.

There's also no reason to abandon classic games, whether that's Go, Chess, B/X D&D, or something else.

I'm working on an RPG type game that has strong competitive gameplay elements, but doesn't abandon the traditional GM / Players split.  There aren't many game like this, and no games using the same approach I'm using.  It's not possible to rely exclusively on experience -- so I need to look at experience with a lot of different games, plus some theory where it makes sense.

Unfortunately a lot of the theory has been rubbish... but some of the discussions about why it's rubbish has actually been helpful.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAs far as new games, I'm all for em'. I disagree that they have to "do something new", though. They probably just have to do something interesting in a fun way. It *could* be something new, but I'd even go for some genre or approach we just haven't thought about yet-- or an amazing setting.

The real success of Gen Con this year as far as I'm concerned was Faery's Tale. But even then, this is a game you could play with kids, but definitely not a game kids would really care about playing with each other.

Well, if you go for a genre or approach which hasn't been thought about yet, that's something new.  Right?  My rant here is against the idea of criticizing new ideas in games because they're new and they haven't been proved successful.  You can use this logic against any game which does anything new -- but that's an empty claim.  

I concur about Faery's Tale, by the way.  It's the one game I got at GenCon 2006 which I've run since then.

Well, you need a unique selling point. That can be 'New and Improved', 'Just Like Mother Used To Make', 'Great Art!', 'Material You Can Use Rather Than Read', 'From The Creator Of X', 'High Quality' or whatever.

Quote from: jhkimI'm of the radical opinion that new games should do something new.  This has jack-all to do with following any particular theory.  I dislike GNS as a theory, and I'd be happy with a new game design that runs counter to it.  However, whatever it is, a new game should try to do something different than what has gone before.  

I agree with this. Something new. I think this is important because I see how something new - even though it may not be actualy new has infleuenced my own gaming group. Perhaps, something different is a more accurate term.

I think there is a great benefit to exposing groups to different types of games. Those games /systems may not be particularly innovative but they could be to that particular game group.

For instance In Harms Way may not according to Clash be innovative, but it was to my group. This game really changed the way how they see rpgs in the sense of actually playing them. It has also allowed me to try other games which they would not not normally be interested in.

A bit off topic, but yeah I do think that new games should be created and if possible with new ideas. I don't think that this could ever be considered a bad thing.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jhkimAnd great.  If all publishing of new RPG books were to stop today, then people could continue to do new things with the books they have.  

However, if you're going to publish a new RPG book, then I think you should at least try to do something new.  For example, I am interested with In Harm's Way because it is treating a subject which hasn't been done -- or at least not since 1983 with Jon Williams' Privateers & Gentlemen.  So it's something fairly new.  

But a game like In Harm's Way, and COUNTLESS other new games, demonstrate that you can be "New" without throwing away or rejecting the conventions that make RPGs recognizeable as RPGs.
Your argument seems to imply that if we don't all start designing Forge games, then all we're left with is somehow going to be D&D clones, or that my position leaves no room for innovation. That's nonsense.   There's practically an infinite range of innovation within the boundaries of what is definably recognizeable as an RPG.  There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and while not all new games that fall within those conventions will be successful (odds are, in fact, that most of them won't be), nothing that rejects conventions of RPGs has thus far managed to become a runaway success.
Your argument is one that creates the false logic that "if we don't make games that reject everything that is currently defined as an RPG, then we're doomed to stagnation", and that's frankly nonsense.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditnothing that rejects conventions of RPGs has thus far managed to become a runaway success.

How to Host a Murder.

QuoteI'm of the radical opinion that new games should do something new.

Okay.
Settle for the big one.
This is the penultimate post I will ever make, and it will crush many a dream:

Nobody needs new games.