What game introduced gaming fiction? That was, well, revolutionary...

Speaking of mere novelties, Castle Falkenstein was pretty interesting. The first game written by the game designer who's also experiencing the backstory. And it used cards, as dice aren't suitable for gentleman and ladies faint when you merely mention them.

Any diceless (published) games before Amber?

Quote from: HinterWeltClearer?

Much.

Amber.  Not for being diceless.

For including a form of clear competition.

A lot of RPGs CLAIM to be "revolutionary" but in reality lack anything at all that make them worthy of that claim.

Many other RPGs have some kind of new "gimmick" or twist to them, but beneath the surface the basic structure comes down to being the same as D&D.  To be really "revolutionary" a game has to be one that is a total break-away from the D&D model.

The only RPG I can think of that can fit that definition and still be called an RPG is Amber.

RPGPundit

Braunstein, `nuff said.

Quote from: HinterWeltBy 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.

Quote from: HinterWeltFor 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.

Well, the obvious big lines of differentiation are freeform online role-playing, MMORPGs, and LARPs.  

Beyond that, it depends how thinly you want to slice it (and, I suppose, how much you want to trot out your favorite games and claim that only they are different).  Was the campaign and leveling of D&D revolutionary compared to previous Brownsteins?  It depends on your point of view.

There are

basic
process
and
cosmetic

innovations

Braunstein was the basic innovator.
D&D formalized the way the new methods could be used.

Quote from: jhkimWell, the obvious big lines of differentiation are freeform online role-playing, MMORPGs, and LARPs.  

Beyond that, it depends how thinly you want to slice it (and, I suppose, how much you want to trot out your favorite games and claim that only they are different).  Was the campaign and leveling of D&D revolutionary compared to previous Brownsteins?  It depends on your point of view.

I would go further and say miniatures coould qualify in some ways, especially some of the newer ones. Also an extension to card games could be made. The lines blur quite a bit recently.

Now, it is not about my favorites but more an observation on the industry as a whole. I do not know that there has been a whole lot of newness in RPGs since the 90s. Setting wise could be argued but systems...not so much in my opinion.

Now, one of the reasons I would site DND is a combination of being the genesis of RPGing as an industry (which has little to do with the system) and the emphasis on campaigns/levels and character advancement. Could another game have done the same? Definitely but it did not. DND was the progenitor and in no small part to the system.

Now, have other games effected the RPG hobby likewise? I think so. Has it happened recently, not to my knowledge but like I said in the original post, I am more than willing to be edicated.

Another example of a game I do not feel was revolutionary. Vampire. System wise it was a plain dice pool mechanic. The only thing I might give it would be the blood pool mechanic but that is just resource management. Mind's Eye though, put LARPing on the map and brought it into a lot of stores in the 90s.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltNow, it is not about my favorites but more an observation on the industry as a whole. I do not know that there has been a whole lot of newness in RPGs since the 90s. Setting wise could be argued but systems...not so much in my opinion.

Hm.  Perhaps you could say what you consider to be the revolutionary RPGs of prior decades?  

Generally speaking, I tend to agree that since the early nineties, mainstream RPGs more or less settled into a formula that primarily recombine a few known mechanical elements.  

However, it's usual that the more innovative RPGs are the smaller-press ones, and larger RPGs slowly adopt their developments in later years.  For example, Champions introduced disadvantages, which slowly became a common feature in RPGs.  Similarly, Theatrix was a small-press game that largely introduced Plot Points.  This has slowly been adopted in other games, like Dramatic Editing in Adventure!, Perversity Points in Paranoia XP, Drama Points in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, and Weaving in True20.

I reckon that roleplaying game systems are like lego packs. There are only a few basic shaped pieces in those packs. There are only certain lego block designs that'll fit with others; you could design some vastly different one, but it just wouldn't fit with the other bits. In each pack, you might get one or two new pieces. The rest are just the old pieces put together in a new way. The group gets the pack, and puts it together the way the instructions tell them, for that design. If they like that design, they play with it for a bit. But after a while, they usually take some pieces off, and put some other pieces on from another pack. Eventually, they get so many pieces from so many different packs, they end up making their own design.

Just a couple new pieces in each pack, and all the rest are old pieces put together in some new way.

I dunno, but sometimes it seems like what some designers in the hobby mean by "revolutionary is "purposely ignored the developments of a thousand games that have come before."

I'd in some ways rather have an "evolutionary" game.  Something that looks to what has come before, what was good, and combines it all with some it's own ideas to make something truly great.

I think that, in some ways, D&D 3.0 is a fantastic example.  They took the good parts from OD&D, and a lot of the devlopments that had come since then in other RPGs, and made not only what I see as the best version of D&D, but one of the best RPGs I've ever played.  I love it.

In video games, Blizzard has always been a sterling example of this.  They take what has gone before, and they make it better.  There's nothing really terribly original in most of their games, but they manage to be fun as all gorram hell anyway.

Innovation is an important thing, and has an imprtant place in game design, but it's also important to remember your history.

Quote from: J ArcaneI dunno, but sometimes it seems like what some designers in the hobby mean by "revolutionary is "purposely ignored the developments of a thousand games that have come before."

I'd in some ways rather have an "evolutionary" game.  Something that looks to what has come before, what was good, and combines it all with some it's own ideas to make something truly great.

I think that, in some ways, D&D 3.0 is a fantastic example.  They took the good parts from OD&D, and a lot of the devlopments that had come since then in other RPGs, and made not only what I see as the best version of D&D, but one of the best RPGs I've ever played.  I love it.

In video games, Blizzard has always been a sterling example of this.  They take what has gone before, and they make it better.  There's nothing really terribly original in most of their games, but they manage to be fun as all gorram hell anyway.

Innovation is an important thing, and has an imprtant place in game design, but it's also important to remember your history.

Sorry if it seemed I was saying otherwise. Evolutionary design is great. Personally, I would say that is what I was trying for with my system. Some will sneer and say "Derivative!" but I think some great things can come out of it. Right now, I am reading Castles & Crusades and it is great fun.

However, I often get tired of hearing about the "Innovative design" or "Revolutionary Mechanics". I just don't see it.

To be perfectly up front, I am more about Setting. Clash at Flying Mice has a fascinating setting in Cold Space. I truly dig on it. I also like the premise of his StarCluster2. Mechanics are not an impediment since most of it I can grok with in a few paragraphs with something like "Oh, dice pool. I got it".

Bill

It was more a side rant, than a direct response.  I too tend to tire of hearing how "innovative" something is, especially when said praise is coming from the games creator.

Just make the game, tell me what the games about, and let the reviewers and the fans and I descide how "innovative" it is.

I'd say that the revolutionary games are going to be small press, indie affairs.  My Life With Master strikes me as one that when I learned about it I was struck that I'd never thought to do that with a roleplaying game.

The big games are going to be the evolutionary games, that take what's worked before, mix in what's new, and create a consistant, refined product.  There was nothing in D&D 3e that wasn't already in other games, but they put it all together in an accessible, consistant, attractive manner.  My own beloved Unisystem is so good precisely *because* it uses good proven mechanics in a good way.

I think there have been three:

Wargaming, which let you decide the results of a conflict through a series of systematized rules. All the players were encouraged to be as expert with these rules as possible and many wargamers set about writing their own rules either to make the game suit their tastes or to emulate new battles.

This led to the RPG, which quickly reduced wargaming to an even smaller niche hobby. RPGs allowed you to identify with a single character, allowed that character to improve over time and introduced fantastical fantasy elements to the mix.

It retained the best things about wargaming, especially the systematized rules that all players were encouraged to be as expert with as possible.

This led to the MMORPG which is in the process of reducing the tabletop RPG to a smaller niche hobby.

Chuck

I don't think anyone has done what I did with Xpress before (plug and play rules that you can swap in and out) but I'd say thats a progression not a revolution since it takes a step further than d20/GURPS houseruling and optional rules.

I have a fairly revolutionary card-deck based system but I just can't afford to produce it at the moment.