Quote from: Daztur;848001Yeah and the hit location rules for that (for example) make so that if you're blind you can never ever hit anyone's legs but your accuracy is unimpaired otherwise.

Weird.
I much prefer the hit location mechanic in Nechronica. You roll 1d10 for your attacks:
1-5; Miss
6; Target chooses which Location is hit
7; Legs
8; Torso
9; Arms
10; Head
11+; Attacker chooses which Location is hit

I think the last innovation on the hobby was more conceptual than mechanical: this "new school" of sorts that mixes traditional and narrativist sensibilities (see FFG Star Wars, Mutant Year Zero) has become a trend these days, even infecting D&D (see 5e inspiration prompts) and the OSR (see Beyond the Wall).

Not that it hasn't been done before (see Pendragon), but it was more of an exception, or anomaly, back then.

Are we still accepting definitions?

Because to me, an "innovation" isn't just doing something differently. It's something that enables something that could not previously be done. Inventing the air plane is an innovation. Writing a new song with a unique combination of words and melodies is not.

There are endless numbers of potential new mechanics. On the other hand, the King of the Hill episode where Peggy creates her own game Spin the Choice kind of says a lot. That's really what every game boils down to.

You know what I would consider an innovation in RPGs at this point? A sort of Rosetta Stone of RPGs that enables me to quickly and easily port in content from different systems.

Quote from: Lunamancer;884868You know what I would consider an innovation in RPGs at this point? A sort of Rosetta Stone of RPGs that enables me to quickly and easily port in content from different systems.

That straightforward just think how the new content fits in your setting. Then come up with a way adjudicating it with your game's mechanics. Most problems with conversions stem from folks trying to focus on rules and mechanics first. By stating the new content in natural language you can quickly gauge whether it will work with how your setting operates. If you can't do that then don't bother with the trying to do the work coming with a way of adjudicate it. It won't make sense in terms how of your campaign works anyway.

Innovation simply means to be different, rather than an improvement, nowadays.

It's just like asking on this BBS what is a cool gritty fantasy RPG. You'll end up with 50 answers from 50 posters. Geeks here love to mention/add games for a growing list in a tread because it makes them feel intelligent naming a game no one else has yet. Even if it's a game that no one cares about.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884895Innovation simply means to be different, rather than an improvement, nowadays.

It's just like asking on this BBS what is a cool gritty fantasy RPG. You'll end up with 50 answers from 50 posters. Geeks here love to mention/add games for a growing list in a tread because it makes them feel intelligent naming a game no one else has yet. Even if it's a game that no one cares about.

+1.

It's somewhat amusing to see not only the babbling about the Hawt Noo Indie Game de Jour, not only the fanboys sneer at anyone who's stuck in their same old lame d20, but how often the HNIGdJ changes and the old one left in the dust.

When I first started on TBP (in 2003), the HNIGdJ seemed to be Feng Shui, and to the indie cognoscenti, lack of familiarity with -- or interest in -- it just meant you were a hopeless loser.  Of course, the bottom dropped out of the game immediately after that, the company published something like one supplement after 2004, and you wouldn't find a Feng Shui thread for love or money by 2005.  No, by then the Kewl Kidz were playing Buffy or Wushu or Dogs in the Vineyard.  And so it went, down the years.

Quote from: estar;884876That straightforward just think how the new content fits in your setting. Then come up with a way adjudicating it with your game's mechanics. Most problems with conversions stem from folks trying to focus on rules and mechanics first. By stating the new content in natural language you can quickly gauge whether it will work with how your setting operates. If you can't do that then don't bother with the trying to do the work coming with a way of adjudicate it. It won't make sense in terms how of your campaign works anyway.

I'm kind of yes and no on this.

In the yes sense, I do appreciate the use of natural language. One of the things that occurred to me on the topic of innovation, or lack thereof, in game mechanics is that however we choose to "spin" it all boils down to a probability matrix of various possible outcomes. In natural language, we typically express probabilities in terms of percentages. So this is a pretty big plus for a percentile-based system, as that is one big step to the game being in plain English.

In the no sense, one thing I like about old school D&D is that you can have a fighter who is powerful enough to slay a dragon, but that fighter will get his ass kicked by say 20 hobgoblins. And 20 hobgoblins will be slain in one blast of the dragon's breath weapon. Obviously you can describe what I just said in natural language. In fact, I just did. But if D&D instead of creating mechanics had instead just gone about describing creatures only in natural language, there's no guarantee that this thing I like would have been communicated. It might not have occurred to the author that's what I was looking for. It might have just been left at "Well, the dragon is as tough as 8 hobgoblins and the fighter is as tough as 12 hobgoblins." Kind of how we talk about engines in terms of horse power.

Going 100% natural language loses something just as surely as going 100% math.

Quote from: Bren;843221Innovation for its own sake does not benefit the game. There are three benefits to innovation.

(1) If the innovation does something useful in the game that existing mechanics can't do.
(2) If the innovation does something other mechanics do, but does it more simply or more elegantly.
(3) If the innovation somehow enhances the game experience in some other way.

2 and 3 though, as far as RPGs are concerned, are subjective.

There is no perfect game, but there can be a perfect game for you.

I'm not favorably impressed by the usual business of coming up with yet another way of tossing dice, then applying that to a rehash of a bunch of familiar premises. I'm but little more interested in the fixation on "build balancing systems" for characters and encounters. All that ends up seeming to me a lot of work for little value (but of course YMMV).

Where I think innovation becomes really worthwhile is in the situation being played. Just the differences from typical "D&D with the serial numbers covered with masking tape" found in Empire of the Petal Throne, Metamorphosis Alpha and RuneQuest were a step ahead. To the extent the OSR goes beyond compiling house-rules sets with only subtle variations, to presenting distinctive worlds to explore, I think it a progressive rather than merely nostalgic enterprise (while at the same time reclaiming a spirit of creativity that perhaps required a renaissance).

The more we get different individual visions thrown into the mix, the more the diversity in the greater number of remixes.

I think it a very good development that publishing is now easily available to ordinary hobbyists, not just big firms that must act conservatively rather than risk disappointing market returns. If you and your friends have a lot of fun actually playing something, that's a pretty good indication that some other folks will as well. Indeed, I reckon it's more likely to be (for the right group) truly excellent than is a safe commercial bet concocted outside the context of actual play.

In the D&D-ish field, I have always found especial pleasure in new monsters and magics. That said, many creations fail to justify themselves in my eyes, being rather boring ringings of the changes.

The greatest creations come with a context of mythos that has depths to tap, rather than being just another set of stats.

Likewise the greatest scenarios are more than just a set of encounters to run through. They open up further potential ramifications, add to the campaign's richness beyond a handful of sessions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;8849822 and 3 though, as far as RPGs are concerned, are subjective.

There is no perfect game, but there can be a perfect game for you.

Simple is quantifiable. But elegance and game experience are both subjective.

I disagree that a subjectively perfect game can exist. But there can be a subjectively best game for any given person.

I think that the best innovation seems like a natural extension of tried and true mechanics.  That's part of why the OSR does such good design.

Quote from: Bren;885099Simple is quantifiable. But elegance and game experience are both subjective.

I disagree that a subjectively perfect game can exist. But there can be a subjectively best game for any given person.

That's the point of subjectivity...if some guy subjectively states "This is the perfect game for me."...it is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;885946That's the point of subjectivity...if some guy subjectively states "This is the perfect game for me."...it is.

Whereas  I'd say he doesn't understand the meaning of perfect.

Quote from: Bren;886122Whereas  I'd say he doesn't understand the meaning of perfect.

:huhsign:

2 seconds with Webster proves you wrong...
"having all the qualities you want in that kind of person, situation, etc."
"satisfying all requirements"
"lacking in no essential detail"

There's a number of valid uses of perfect that include subjective or personal evaluations, all of which could apply to a RPG in someone's estimation.

Jesus, just those three alone I quoted meets the definition of half a dozen GMs I know who have spent years tinkering with their own homebrew and have got it right the way they like it and have stopped tinkering.

Yeah, yeah lemme guess... "that's not really perfect, they just haven't thought of the next change yet"...whatever. :hand:

Talk to Katsumoto