Quote from: -E.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.

Like Word of Warcraft... or HeroScape... or D&D Miniatures... or Descent...

In truth, RPGPundit / theRPGsite does promote a narrow definition of RPG.  That usually doesn't bother me, as it tends to keep the Forge cult-talk at bay, but it's worth recognizing that your view of new/popular/innovative RPGs will be greatly influenced by how broadly or narrowly your definition is.

I'm leaning towards "Adventure Game" for my own project.  

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, 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.

I suspect it'll be somewhere in the middle.   That is, something very much like what Clash is doing now, just a little further out, and something that has a singular and powerful feel to it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYes, 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"?

I'd say that LARPS have also been very successful on the whole.  I would suggest that part of that success is that they didn't try to market themselves as pnp RPGs; they recognized they were a different hobby and went their own way.

Fleetwood Mac had a point you know, you CAN go your own way...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd say that LARPS have also been very successful on the whole. I would suggest that part of that success is that they didn't try to market themselves as pnp RPGs; they recognized they were a different hobby and went their own way

Hmm... interestingly enough White Wolf isn't marketing either the LARP version of Vampire or the tabletop version as an "RPG".

Quote from: White Wolf re:VampireJoin the revival of the Storytelling tradition. Vampire: The Requiem invites you to tell your own stories set within the world of the Kindred. This book includes rules for using vampires in World of Darkness chronicles, covering everything from the five clans to covenants to Disciplines, bloodlines, storytelling advice and a complete spread of game systems governing the undead.

Do they refer to their products as RPGs anymore?  Are there other "RPG" companies who have also stopped using that term?

Quote from: RPGPunditFleetwood Mac had a point you know, you CAN go your own way...

*Shrug*

I'm increasingly less sure that calling a game an RPG has real meaning.

Hell, I don't wave LARP around as RPG-play, or How to Host a Murder.  But I do think that those games, along with oddities like Executive Decision, have just as much claim (if not more) to the title as World of Warcraft and it's relations do - and no amount of fighting will stop those games from being called RPGs.

D&D, as you might note, doesn't spend a lot of time it's pages defining what other roleplaying games are, because that way lies advertising those other games.  It defines itself.

I'm beginnning to think that one of the largest things that RPG designs outside of D&D do wrong is in giving a damn whether or not they qualify, and bothering to define "RPG" to self-include inside their pages.

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.

Penultimate post? What's this about?

Oh, and engaging with your point: if everyone stopped buying things they didn't need, it wouldn't just be the RPG industry that would be in trouble. Worldwide economic collapse would be the more pressing concern.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*Shrug*

I'm increasingly less sure that calling a game an RPG has real meaning.

I guess I'm smoking whatever it is you're smoking, because I really, really agree with this. Or maybe I not very concerned about what they call it, so long as whatever it is, in whatever way it does, continues to entertain the crew and me.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Abyssal MawWe 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?

Like, duh.

Because it's a BITCH to design.

It's something that Tweet did absolutely right for DnD. He established a simple, easy-to-understand mechanic with the capability to be easily expanded, manipulated, and perhaps most importantly, consistently complexified.

Note that it's capable of being consistently complexified-- not that all users will be consistent when making it more complex.

I'm not ashamed to say that I find such complexity daunting to design -- more importantly, I'm simply not interested in it any more. I'm not interested in touch-feely gaming either. So I choose to streamline my efforts and let the user complicate their lives if they want to.

For my purposes, traditional gaming is:
Players play a character (or rarely, multiple characters).
They quantitatively describe those characters using attributes.
They usually roll dice to resolve task attempts, and incorporate their attributes in some sort of calculation.
They move these characters through some story organized/initiated by a single GM.

And Pundit -- I think I left a note in the DoN review when I shipped off your package. A time stamp, of sorts. Not sure how long it takes mail to move from California to your doorstep.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, 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.

And I never made that suggestion.  

Quote from: RPGPunditIn 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.

First of all, I agree with you that the Forge dogma that traditional RPGs are broken is just dumb.  However, you're making the further claim about unconventional designs.  

The key question is why you think that about unconventional RPGs.  

If you want to say make an empirical argument based on their small current unit sales, that's fine.  We can look at the number about how well Forge games compare to traditional games with the same distribution and marketing.  If you want to say they're less appealing because of the quality of the writing or somesuch, then we can compare criticism of the text.  Again, I might or might not agree depending on the game.

However, what I see is an argument based solely on the principle that they're different than what was successful in the past (i.e. D&D and Vampire).  And that's an empty argument, as I said.  Every successful new game has been unconventional to what has gone before.

Let me start of by saying that innovative and good are best, but if you can't be both innovative and good go with good.

Where rules are concerned we need to keep in mind this truth, we are limited in our ability to know and to understand. Because a world - even an imaginary one - is too large and too complex for us to fully comprehend, we can never create a system of rules that will cover what is possible in any detail. Any rule system must perforce be flexible enough to be applied to different situations, and that means the rules must be broad and not narrow. This means that those rules that can be used in different situations instead of just one work better than rules that are more narrowly used.

With this caveat. There are situations where the rules have to be applied differently than in other situations. But such are best left to guidelines for applying a rule in such circumstances.

The first step is accepting the fact we can't legislate every little thing with a specific legislation for each. We can only create broadly applicable rules that cover a range of possiblities, and allow those rules to apply to new situations similar to old.

Remember, it is not how the homicide was done, what matters is the killer's intent.

Quote from: rumbleAnd Pundit -- I think I left a note in the DoN review when I shipped off your package. A time stamp, of sorts. Not sure how long it takes mail to move from California to your doorstep.

It shouldn't take more than about two or three weeks. So if we're past that date, its time to start being a little concerned.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm beginnning to think that one of the largest things that RPG designs outside of D&D do wrong is in giving a damn whether or not they qualify, and bothering to define "RPG" to self-include inside their pages.

Yeah... I'm starting to think along these lines as well.  Not worrying if it's an "RPG" and focusing more on whether it's a well designed game (fun, easy to learn, depth of play, appropriate play-time, etc) seems like a better idea.

I'm not convinced "RPG" is all that greate a term for marketing to new players either.

Quote from: David RI guess I'm smoking whatever it is you're smoking, because I really, really agree with this. Or maybe I not very concerned about what they call it, so long as whatever it is, in whatever way it does, continues to entertain the crew and me.

Regards,
David R

Damn skippy.

QuoteI'm not convinced "RPG" is all that greate a term for marketing to new players either.

Maybe they should all be called KMRLRPGs (Kinda Multiplayer Real Life RPGs). Well, there's probably a better one then that, but it's a start.

QuoteYeah... I'm starting to think along these lines as well.  Not worrying if it's an "RPG" and focusing more on whether it's a well designed game (fun, easy to learn, depth of play, appropriate play-time, etc) seems like a better idea.

Ron Edwards tries this. His biggest project (Spione) "shall not be called" RPG, is not discussed at the forge, and is supposed to be distributed through bookstores.
I´d say it´s still a RPG, but at least Ron doesn´t want it to be one, or to be known as one.

Quote from: SettembriniRon Edwards tries this. His biggest project (Spione) "shall not be called" RPG, is not discussed at the forge, and is supposed to be distributed through bookstores.
I´d say it´s still a RPG, but at least Ron doesn´t want it to be one, or to be known as one.

*groan*
much like Kevin Smith saying  "This movie isn't for critics" (re: Gigli)
so that in case any 'brain damaged' gamers have comments about it, they can be disregarded with hand-waving and monocle-tightening. (cause it's not a game...for you.)

it's as if he's worried about some imperceptible taint that will rub off on his work...you know, the 'taint' that will make 'straights' or non-gamers not buy the game (oops NOT AN RPG THOUGH!) because it's associated with uh RPGs (?)

ughh...back to never reading theory again.