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

I'd say you can go with either.  For example, if you've got a game which would go head-to-head with D&D -- then I can totally understand trying to stand out by putting in something different rather than just making another D&D clone, even if it would be a really high-quality D&D clone.  

Speaking as a consumer...  Even if an attempted innovation isn't the best it could possibly be, I appreciate breaking new ground rather than retreading the same stuff.  If your stuff is good, but doesn't do anything new compared to what I've already got, then I'm not going to buy your stuff.  Being almost as good a sci-fi game as Traveller (a very good game) doesn't necessarily win you any points given that I already have Traveller.  

Quote from: mythusmageWhere 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.

I don't have an issue with this, but it's also irrelevant to the thread here.  I'm not saying that any one rules design is better or worse either way.  I'm just saying that whatever you do, it should try something new.

So, over in a post on The Error of Game Design Priorities, Elliot said:

Quote from: Elliot WilenBeyond that, though, we have a fundamental clash between the interests of hobbyists and those of designers. It's hardly in a designer's financial or career interest to make a D&D clone (maybe with a different setting). The paradox is that's what most hobbyists want.

No, that's not what most hobbyists want.  Most current RPG hobbyists want D&D.  

This is exactly the error which my thread is about.  Obviously, if you look only at the current sales, then you're going to conclude that whatever is selling best is what people want.  However, this is a clear mistake.  There have been dozens and dozens of indie and non-indie designers over three decades who have imagined that by because D&D was successful, they can succeed by making something as close as possible to D&D.  It's a dumb idea and it never works.  

To get a successful new design, you have to do something new.  Every time there was a success in game design, you see the same thing.  D&D was different than previous wargames.  Vampire was different from D&D.  Magic: The Gathering was not the same as the card games which went before it.  Etc.

Quote from: jhkimMost current RPG hobbyists want D&D.  

This is exactly the error which my thread is about.  Obviously, if you look only at the current sales, then you're going to conclude that whatever is selling best is what people want.  However, this is a clear mistake.  There have been dozens and dozens of indie and non-indie designers over three decades who have imagined that by because D&D was successful, they can succeed by making something as close as possible to D&D.  It's a dumb idea and it never works.

Well, let's have a little clarity here. People weren't trying to make something as close as possible to D&D. They try to make something that improves on D&D, but most of them don't improve enough, or differentiate enough. Or the "improvements" they come up with actually work contrary to whatever it is that makes D&D popular.

But a number of them did succeed by making minor variations on the fundamentals of the D&D paradigm. They just didn't displace D&D. There was nothing stupid about Runequest, Traveller, WFRP, GURPS, etc. If the modern "focused" games ever compete with these in terms of commercial success, I think it would largely be attributable to technological developments in production, marketing, and distribution, rather than design.

Beyond that, I'm opposed to the idea that hobbyists are served by innovation the same way that game designers are. The problem with a lot of the so-called "Fantasy Heartbreakers" is that somebody tried to market them (using traditional methods, I might add), not that they were designed in the first place. For designers, "traditional designs" may be a mistake--though I do not know if a well-made small-press traditional design on an unusual subject is any less commercially-viable than an average Forge-style game. But it's a different question entirely which type of game better serves the bulk of hobbyists. And if you're designing a game mainly for your own use, perhaps with an eye to sharing it or selling it through a low-risk sales paradigm--then innovation should be completely secondary to making a game you enjoy.

In that sense there's no error at all to tradition-based game design.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, let's have a little clarity here. People weren't trying to make something as close as possible to D&D. They try to make something that improves on D&D, but most of them don't improve enough, or differentiate enough. Or the "improvements" they come up with actually work contrary to whatever it is that makes D&D popular.

But a number of them did succeed by making minor variations on the fundamentals of the D&D paradigm. They just didn't displace D&D. There was nothing stupid about Runequest, Traveller, WFRP, GURPS, etc.

I didn't say there was.  All of these set out to do something different (though arguably GURPS is a collection of prior innovations).  RQ threw out classes, levels, alignment, and more.  Traveller did the same and went to a completely untested genre.  

By your logic, applied at the time, each of these would have been misguided, because they didn't give what the majority of the market wanted.  The fallacy is that you're using the current market as a way to judge what people want.  Obviously, if your only data point is the past market, then what people want is what is in the past.  You conclude from this that there is no appeal in games which are different than what is in the past.  

Now, at this point you may have a response that the changes in RuneQuest were perfectly fine -- those were all changes within the bounds of traditional RPGs, while Forge games are outside of it.  But I assert that you're just using hindsight to justify this.  Your definition of what traditional RPGs are is based on the breaks from tradition which came before.  

In short, the core of your argument is "X is different than what most gamers are currently playing -- therefore most people don't like X and it won't be a success".  Regardless of what X is, this argument is flawed.  There are a lot of valid arguments to be made against the Forge and Forge-related designs, but this isn't one of them.

What I find funny is that many of the newer games I've read (including D20) are games that have been designed or re-designed based off hiccups of "traditional" RPG play.  When you read them, it's usually extremely transparent what they are trying to remedy.  We've even created terms that define these hiccups.  Railroading, Munchkin, Turtle, Power Gamer, etc...  People that defend "traditional" play typically use the "my players or GM never did that" defense.  I call BULLSHIT to that line of defense.  That's why we all identify with the terms.  We just surround ourselves with players that fit our style of play.  It works because we find the people that make it work.  

The newer games are trying to create a style where anyone can play regardless of the players personnel style.  Instead of trying to find people that represent what you consider a "good" player or "good" GM, you can play with the people you have.

Come on, John, that's a caricature of what I'm saying. The closest you've come to representing my actual opinion is that RQ et. al. do in fact operate within the bounds of traditional RPGs: the GM/player split between responsibility for world/character, use of task resolution as opposed to conflict resolution (whatever that is), and a relatively "free form" approach to motivation & scenario framing within the game (complicating things away from pure "win/lose"). Yet they use that basic framework to address a variety of subjects, or simply to refine technical issues like realism, detail, streamlined mechanics, etc. You might as well argue that the same calculus should be used in the decision to produce and market The Godfather as Drawing Restraint, concluding that The Godfather either was just as untraditional (and therefore worthy of being made), or exactly like The Adventures of Robin Hood, and therefore a waste of film.

Quote from: GunslingerThe newer games are trying to create a style where anyone can play regardless of the players personnel style.  Instead of trying to find people that represent what you consider a "good" player or "good" GM, you can play with the people you have.

Yeah, I call BS on that. If the player's personal style doesn't mesh with the game's focus, then the group is busted. A benefit of the less focused games is that they can adapt through a process of group socialization.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYeah, I call BS on that. If the player's personal style doesn't mesh with the game's focus, then the group is busted. A benefit of the less focused games is that they can adapt through a process of group socialization.

Good point.  Let me try that again.  "The newer games are trying to create a style where anyone can play regardless of the players personnel style...if they buy off on the focus of the game".

Quote from: Elliot WilenCome on, John, that's a caricature of what I'm saying. The closest you've come to representing my actual opinion is that RQ et. al. do in fact operate within the bounds of traditional RPGs: the GM/player split between responsibility for world/character, use of task resolution as opposed to conflict resolution (whatever that is), and a relatively "free form" approach to motivation & scenario framing within the game (complicating things away from pure "win/lose").

How is what I said a caricature?  As far as I can see, you are exactly repeating what I described.  Can you state somewhere that you differ from my post?  

As I see it, this definition of traditional RPGs uses selection and hindsight.  Traditional games also involve rolling polyhedral dice, having character sheets, and sci-fi/fantasy content.  If we went back in time, we'd also say they involved playing the good guys, and various other commonalities.  

Back in the nineties, there were violent arguments over the radical new diceless games -- as I think you recall from rgfa.  People would say they were unplayable, or simply couldn't imagine how they could work.  Now, on the one hand, it's not like diceless games were terribly successful over the past 15 years, but no one talks about how radical they are these days.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou might as well argue that the same calculus should be used in the decision to produce and market The Godfather as Drawing Restraint, concluding that The Godfather either was just as untraditional (and therefore worthy of being made), or exactly like The Adventures of Robin Hood, and therefore a waste of film.

I don't recall saying anything about how to produce and market, nor that everything was equally new and different.  I'm saying that both the Godfather and Drawing Restraint have something new compared to the films that came before.  There can be greater and lesser degrees of difference, but simply being different is not a mark against something nor does it show that it will be unsuccessful.  

Specifically about RPGs, though, most of the Forge games are hardly category-breaking to this degree.  You suggest that conflict resolution, though vague, makes some categorical difference -- but I don't see it.  I've gone back and forth from play of Buffy, to Amber, to Dogs, to Dead of Night, and while there were differences each time, none of them was seen as a different activity.  Each player has their character sheet; they roll their dice pools; etc.

Quote from: jhkimI'd say you can go with either.

(major snippage)

Making a wild guess here, I'd say you like new things. I like new things too, but at my age I've seen enough new things that newness alone no longer cuts it. New and good, now you're cooking.

New gets you the people who like new, but it doesn't keep them. Once the new has worn off, they're off looking for more new. New and good has a better chance of hooking those who will stay with what you've done. You want your effort to make a real impact in the world, you need to produce something that will be around for awhile. New alone doesn't last very long, for new soon becomes old.

Where old is concerned, don't dismiss it so cavalierly. Just because it's been done before doesn't mean you can't do it your own way. Maybe even better. The (n)WoD is not the last word in playing the monster. (Or even the monster as superhero. Steven Brown's The Everlasting is an interesting, albeit flawed, reworking of the (o)WoD. In the right hands I think it could be a better take on the trope as White Wolf presents it today.

My points is; innovate, but don't rely on innovation alone. Do it well and your innovation will go further than it would otherwise.

BTW, that bit about being limited in our understanding? It's about rules heavy design. All inclusive designs where everything has to have a specific rule just for it. You know, one rule for walking across a wood floor, another for walking across a waxed wood floor, still another for walking across a waxed wood floor while wearing crepe soled shoes. That sort of thing. Provide the basics, and encourage initiative and innovation on the part of the prospective GM.

Quote from: mythusmageMaking a wild guess here, I'd say you like new things. I like new things too, but at my age I've seen enough new things that newness alone no longer cuts it. New and good, now you're cooking.

Yes, though I like old things too.  Many of my favorite games (and those I've played recently) designed in the 80s -- James Bond 007, Ars Magica 2nd, Hero 4th.  But I like my new things to be, well, new.  

Quote from: mythusmageMy points is; innovate, but don't rely on innovation alone. Do it well and your innovation will go further than it would otherwise.

I completely agree.

John, your comments are a caricature of what I wrote since (pretty obviously) I believe my reason for viewing RQ et. al. as traditional RPGs isn't just tradition and hindsight, but innate characteristics of the form and how it is received. Based on that, I'm not saying that new games shouldn't do anything new. I also doubt that Pundit or anyone else is advocating that new games should keep doing exactly the same thing, either.

Instead, I'm expressing skepticism about the potential audience of games that are similar to "traditional RPGs" but which deviate in certain key ways. Nor do I think we can write off innovation within established forms--the kind of innovation that Pundit and others favor.

To go back to my movie example, there's still plenty of demand for more mafia movies, family dramas, slapstick comedies, etc. The demand for avant-garde art films is minuscule by comparison. Is this only because the public prefers the familiar? Or is it because the popular stuff has an innate universal appeal? Personally, I think it's the latter; no amount of familiarity or education is going to wean the public off of Shrek and onto the films of Andy Warhol.

Aside from that, it's worth asking, "Who cares?"--not to dismiss the whole discussion but to note that the importance of innovation depends on your frame of reference. For the sake of this thread you're engaging Pundit in the area where I think he's strongest: the argument from popularity and marketability. To counter that on its own terms, I really think one has to say that competing in the traditional market is just too brutal, while if a designer wants to make a buck and get noticed, it's far easier to cater to relatively unexploited tastes, even if they're found in narrower segments of the population.

Quote from: Elliot WilenTo counter that on its own terms, I really think one has to say that competing in the traditional market is just too brutal, while if a designer wants to make a buck and get noticed, it's far easier to cater to relatively unexploited tastes, even if they're found in narrower segments of the population.

There is no proof whatsoever that all the alternative markets that RPG-variants could reach are smaller.

Many indications point to the contrary.

Oh, and about this:

Quote from: jhkimI don't recall saying anything about how to produce and market

Since I reference marketing again in my last post, you might want to object again. But if you're not talking about marketability, then what is your reason for saying that a new game should do something new?

Suppose I'm a designer and you tell me my game isn't innovative enough, by whatever standard you use to measure innovation. Why should I listen to you?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere is no proof whatsoever that all the alternative markets that RPG-variants could reach are smaller.

Many indications point to the contrary.

Nope, that's all speculation & hypothesis.

As is what I said about alternative markets being smaller.

But you'll notice that I give my reasons. That is, I have a theory. To elaborate: I don't think the RPG-variants are differentiated, enough, from other forms of entertainment. For well-structured games with clearcut procedures, German-style board games are going to be superior to RPG-like entertainments. For creative freedom and narrative (in the non-jargon sense) immersion (ditto), I think traditional RPGs will probably continue to enjoy wider popularity.

The alternative games have a market. I just don't think it will exceed that of these other two categories, and where it overlaps, I think those other varieties of games will generally dominate.