Quote from: SettembriniNobody needs new games.

Nobody needs games.

Gosh, this is fun.  Can we say more things that miss the point now?

I want a pony.

I agree with your post; nothing wrong with new.

I will say a few things that miss your point (in honor of Levi's post) but are relevant because they're often part of related conversations:

1) I'm skeptical of innovation for innovation's sake
2) I'm irritated by claims (that you aren't, and haven't made, but others have) that the existing, traditional model is broken
3) Terminology that uses the "r word" (revolution) or war metaphors (this includes the Pundit) turns me off -- we're all doing what we can, you know? (again -- this misses you're point; you're not carrying pictures of the Chairman)

But I do want to pick something up from your post that I think is worth discussing (even if it's not framed in terms of agreement or disagreement):

Quote from: jhkimSo, 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.

I bolded the part about the model.

The model's what interests me -- and it's the part I'm the most-interrested in seeing innovation around and the least-interested in most of the actual innovation.

I see virtually all RPG's as following, essentially, the highly-successful D&D model (the "traditional gaming model"). Games that deviate from it are often categorically less interesting to me.

There's certainly room for infinite diversity *within* the model (mice's IHW, which I watched an on-line game of the other night, and was intrigued).

I suspect that it's very hard to come up with significant improvements on the model -- a new model would probably look like something other than an RPG... and it wouldn't replace the (existing, working) model... but it would sort of be an investigation into other kinds of social structured interaction around some of the themes of rpg's.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SettembriniOkay.
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.

I actually agree. I have never seen a need to rush or felt a burning need for newness either. And you know, that does take the pressure off. Seperated from the value of newness as a virtue in itself-- when something amazing comes along for me, it tends to stand out (or disappear) by it's own virtue.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut 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.  

Actually, I explicitly said the opposite in my post -- that I don't give a shit about whether the innovation is at all similar or disimilar to the current spate of games from the Forge.  

Quote from: RPGPunditThere'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.

You're right.  There's no need for new RPGs of any sort.  The existing RPGs are fine and there's nothing wrong with them.  However, the fact that something is different than what has been successful in the past is not an argument against it.  

For example, there has never been anything without magic or other fantasy elements which has thus far managed to become a runaway success -- let alone a straight Napoleonic game.  So therefore, one could argue that we should only stick to fantasy, horror, and sci-fi games -- because that is what has been successful in the past.  Advocates of F/SF can claim (quite rightly) "There's no need to throw out magic, because there's infinite range for innovation within F/SF!"  

The same complaints were made when Amber Diceless came out -- that there was no need to toss out dice, since there was infinite range for innovation using dice.  

The fact that there are different innovations possible isn't an argument against a game.

Quote from: RPGPunditYour 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.

I didn't read this into the statement. I think your interpretation is a natural thinking path, but not the only one.

Dead of Night is a perfectly traditional game brings quite a few new concepts to the gaming table. My primary goal was not to alienate traditional players with some way-out-there concept. Those traditional players are the bread-and-butter of the industry. All I did was ask for a 90-degree shift in their character design approach. Not too much of a leap, since it actually makes things easier for the players in the long run.

But there's nothing wrong with creating options for the newer developing styles of play, so I did that too.

Quote from: -E.There's certainly room for infinite diversity *within* the model (mice's IHW, which I watched an on-line game of the other night, and was intrigued).

Whoa! That was you -E? Rock!

-clash

Oh, one last insight:

There's traditional, and then there's D&D.

We can all acknowledge D&D is the biggest, right? But D&D is also weird and practically unique in the way it does what it does when compared to other RPGs. This is pointed out quite often. There are very few RPGs that still have such a robust tactical core-game, despite the fact that they rule the market. Why is that?

In fact, I can only really count Hero and Gurps off the top of my head. And maybe like.. Rolemaster, if it ever comes back in wide publication.

I don't count Savage Worlds- it has a veneer of tactical-ness, but it's just a veneer. Underneath it has a lot of seemingly touchy feely fuzzy stuff about what dice to assign to abilities and you can't really use your mastery of the SW rules to dominate encounters like you can with D&D, Gurps, and Hero. Heck, I don't even count True 20. I don't even count Rifts: Rifts is pretty much just a matter of comparing equipment and damage rolls. There's not much in the way of tactical movement or advantage-seeking tactical play going on.

SO there's traditional, and there's traditional.

Also, this is why I laugh so loud when someone says "Oh, well if gamers like D&D? then they'll obviously love TSOY. It has something  almost like feats!"

Aside from being a non-innovative designer, I maintain that innovation is necessary, and if I have to sift through a few fuggly games for these few gems of innovation buried in many games, I can deal. I've never yet seen a Forge game that I want to play, but there are some cool, truly innovative things that some of them do in amongst the other stuff I'm not interested in. To me, it's worth it that these games exist for this reason alone. Lord knows I'm not going to come up with anything on my own that hasn't been done before. Someone's got to do it! Besides that, there are a substantial minority of folks who love these games, and that's cool with me. It would be a boring world if everyone had the same opinion as me. It'd be like a campaign setting without conflict...

-clash

See, this thread shows the classic mistake of ending up defending conservatism against the new wave.

Its a crap arguement - advertising men have been selling new and improved for so long that you don't want to end up as the stodgy stick in the mud.

Far better to go on the offensive, talk about the forgite dogma that accepts only one way as the true way, stiffling inovation, just how derivative forge games are, the truely massive numbers of forge heartbreakers devoid of any inspiration of quality we are now seeing.

Yes, I know you want to be edgy, but you missed it. Just following the forge line is so 2002 man.

And Clash dude - Sell your products. New and improved straight historical roleplaying! Semi competitive play, mirroring the service! Will YOUR hero be the one to make it to admiral!

Quote from: Erik BoielleAnd Clash dude - Sell your products. New and improved straight historical roleplaying! Semi competitive play, mirroring the service! Will YOUR hero be the one to make it to admiral!

Well, I've long been aware that my games sell despite my efforts, not because of them...

-clash

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHow to Host a Murder.

That's closer to a LARP than an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimThe fact that there are different innovations possible isn't an argument against a game.

No, its not.  But it is an argument against the suggestion that in order to "move forward" we must actively reject and depose all existing conventions, and that this kind of change is something that would either be desirable or successful.

In particular, my thread was pointing out that the particular direction guided by the aphorism, which the Forge Crowd pulled out of their collective asses, that "the best most popular game will be the game where you have a single very narrow theme and a perfectly-tooled system that leaves no need or room for interpretation by any tyrannical DM" was one that ignored the plethora of possibilities offered by conventional RPGs, and these more open systems are more naturally appealing and tied to what players really want, in direct contradiction to Forge Dogma.

Given that your title seems to claim that this thread is a response to that, I think my statements here are relevant.

RPGPundit

Quote from: rumbleI didn't read this into the statement. I think your interpretation is a natural thinking path, but not the only one.

Dead of Night is a perfectly traditional game brings quite a few new concepts to the gaming table. My primary goal was not to alienate traditional players with some way-out-there concept. Those traditional players are the bread-and-butter of the industry. All I did was ask for a 90-degree shift in their character design approach. Not too much of a leap, since it actually makes things easier for the players in the long run.

But there's nothing wrong with creating options for the newer developing styles of play, so I did that too.

I'm still looking forward to receiving my review copy, btw. Don't know when you sent it, but it hasn't arrived.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's closer to a LARP than an RPG.

Yes, they are.

They are, regardless, clearly games - ones which require roleplaying.  They don't claim to be RPGs, nor do they fit your model of what an RPG is.  They are, however, a commercial success.

You asked for an example of something that discarded the model (while, one assumes, retaining a large chunk of the core activity) and succeeded commercially.  I gave you one.

So, who the fuck cares what they're "closer to"?

Quote from: Erik BoielleSee, this thread shows the classic mistake of ending up defending conservatism against the new wave.

Its a crap arguement - advertising men have been selling new and improved for so long that you don't want to end up as the stodgy stick in the mud.

Far better to go on the offensive, talk about the forgite dogma that accepts only one way as the true way, stiffling inovation, just how derivative forge games are, the truely massive numbers of forge heartbreakers devoid of any inspiration of quality we are now seeing.

Yes, I know you want to be edgy, but you missed it. Just following the forge line is so 2002 man.

And Clash dude - Sell your products. New and improved straight historical roleplaying! Semi competitive play, mirroring the service! Will YOUR hero be the one to make it to admiral!

Hey, I know you say all this just a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in fact, I really do think that Clash's style of games, and everything of the sort that BM games is doing (Hearts & Souls, etc) really is where the true future of small-press RPGs lies.   If a small-press RPG is going to suddenly turn into a runaway hit, it will be one of these, and not one of the Forge's offerings.

RPGPundit