So, do you believe there are revolutionary game designs being produced? If so, what?

By Revolutionary, for this discussion, let us say NEW (not used before) and FUNCTIONAL (someone can enjoy playing it). I do not doubt there are NEW systems and without doubt FUNCTIONAL systems but I have some issues with the claims to combine them. I can come up with a NEW system, here you go:
You may only succeed in a task if you kiss the person next to you, HARD with tongue. Wach successfull task means the next attempt must be the next person around the table until you reach yourself. You may perform no other tasks at this point and the game ends.

Now, I haven't seen that system before (it may exist but I do not know) but it would not be fun in any group I have played in and I have played in all women groups. Although I will admit it might be functional...maybe with the right group, but how to get six super models to play an RPG...? Well that is a different thread.

So, to sum up, it is my theory that a lot of designers think they are making the original-super-fun-ok game but I tend to think most systems are rehashes of past mechanics. Note: not on purpose. I believe strongly in parallel evolution and invention. I think there has been improvements and streamlining but true innovation is a thing of the past.

I could be jaded though and hope someone shows me the light. I really need to ease up in the sinus meds...

Bill

Nope, I don't think there will ever be a truely revolutionary system written in the future. There are only so many ways you can use dice,chips, and cards in RPing and I think they have all been used multiple times.

Hey, I can do you one better!  I don't think there ever have been revolutionary systems!

No, not really, but it's the same sort of unsupported claim, and it draws people into the same pattern of proposing systems that might be revolutionary, and then having them shot down over details, so what the heck!  If it's fun for current systems it'll be twice as fun for past systems.

A revolutionary system kicks off a revolution.  To my eyes, D&D is the only surefire example of that in roleplaying.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, do you believe there are revolutionary game designs being produced? If so, what?

Dogs in the Vineyard changed how I saw gaming, did things that were new to me, and functioned.  It did not produce the same effect in others, nor has it produced any kind of large-scale industry effects.

D&D 3.5 did not change how I saw gaming.  It did nothing entirely new to me (though it did many older things much more smoothly); it functioned.  It did produce massive effects on the industry.

So, what do you mean by "Revolutionary"?

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, to sum up, it is my theory that a lot of designers think they are making the original-super-fun-ok game but I tend to think most systems are rehashes of past mechanics. Note: not on purpose. I believe strongly in parallel evolution and invention. I think there has been improvements and streamlining but true innovation is a thing of the past.
Bill

I agree.  Anytime anybody makes something, they borrow, improve, tinker, elegant-ize from a medium or mediums, whether consciously or not.

Your point about parallel invention is also a good one - people all over the world realized independently that a sharp tool could cut meat, or, as time went by, people.  It's difficult to believe that there was, for example, a single monkey who created a monkey-knife, and that all knives in the history of mankind only exist in a lineage directly inspired by that particular muscle cutter.  

From Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri:

"There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn nonetheless for the latter."

-Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Address to the Faculty"


Funny how that game has so many great quotes.

I would say that the MMORPG is the "revolutionary" gaming event.  It has devastated the table-top market and done nationally and intertnaionally what table-top gaming has only managed to do in a local or regional market: create gaming communities.

Quote from: jrientsA revolutionary system kicks off a revolution.  To my eyes, D&D is the only surefire example of that in roleplaying.

hmm, I would argue that DND is one and (again not an expert) either WEG Star Wars or Shadowrun for dicepools. Amber for diceless? I don't know of any card based (TORG maybe). To me, you would need to start a genre not just publish a game. I am not opposed to d20 being one but I cannot think of anything that it did that hadn't been done before.

Note: I am not saying d20 is not a commercial success or that to be revolutionary you need to be a commercial success. You do need to make an impression though. Your game could use all nifty new resolution mechanics only to fade into obscurity before your best friend plays it.

Bill

Quote from: jrientsA revolutionary system kicks off a revolution.  To my eyes, D&D is the only surefire example of that in roleplaying.

:bow:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDogs in the Vineyard changed how I saw gaming, did things that were new to me, and functioned.  It did not produce the same effect in others, nor has it produced any kind of large-scale industry effects.

D&D 3.5 did not change how I saw gaming.  It did nothing entirely new to me (though it did many older things much more smoothly); it functioned.  It did produce massive effects on the industry.

So, what do you mean by "Revolutionary"?

IMO, for a system to be revolutionary it has to be something that has not been done before and has to affect the gaming community as a whol. DiV didn't do either of those. D&D didn't really do anything new, but it did affect the gaming community as a whole so I don't think it is revolutionary either.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDogs in the Vineyard changed how I saw gaming, did things that were new to me, and functioned.  It did not produce the same effect in others, nor has it produced any kind of large-scale industry effects.

D&D 3.5 did not change how I saw gaming.  It did nothing entirely new to me (though it did many older things much more smoothly); it functioned.  It did produce massive effects on the industry.

So, what do you mean by "Revolutionary"?

For the purposes of this discussion let us say that Revolutionary must have an effect on more than a localized population (a few hundred say) AND do something truly different. For instance, using dicepools with d10s might have been new in the early 90s but hardly revolutionary. Using a poker deck and chips for a resolution mechanic would be and a few folks might even be able to name that game.

Clearer?

Bill

Quote from: McrowIMO, for a system to be revolutionary it has to be something that has not been done before and has to affect the gaming community as a whol. DiV didn't do either of those. D&D didn't really do anything new, but it did affect the gaming community as a whole so I don't think it is revolutionary either.

Spot on Mike.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI don't know of any card based (TORG maybe).

Deadlands used a deck of cards to determine initiative and played poker for gunfights.

Quote from: VellorianI would say that the MMORPG is the "revolutionary" gaming event.  It has devastated the table-top market and done nationally and intertnaionally what table-top gaming has only managed to do in a local or regional market: create gaming communities.

I agree with the caveat that I (personally) do not consider such games RPGs. CRPGs are a different beast and MMORPGs are a derivative of those. However, I entirely agree with the effect of this similar but different industry on TTRPGs.

Bill