Quote from: Kyle Aaron]Are you sure all of them were just variations on D&D? Surely some of them had some innovation in there...

Of course, as we all know, Pundit is full of shit.  On one hand, he'll make the sweeping generalisation that there has been no innovation... and yet, the moment a game does try to be a bit different, he'll claim it isn't really an RPG (or dismiss it as little more than a gimmick).  In other words, according to his very definitions of what makes a game an RPG, it is almost impossible to be innovative and remain one!

Well, yes. But as to Funk's actual question, innovation in the last ten years... well I don't know, how different does it have to be? No skills/attributes/dis/advantages divide? Apart from freeform traits games, my own rpg. Then there's freeform traits, which game first had that, was it within the last decade? How about the GM paying the player XP to active traits in Fate, is that different enough from "roleplay your bad stuff well and get extra xp"?

I mean, every game does something a bit different and new, which may or may not change your own game group's fun much... how different does it have to be?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkOf course, as we all know, Pundit is full of shit.  On one hand, he'll make the sweeping generalisation that there has been no innovation... and yet, the moment a game does try to be a bit different, he'll claim it isn't really an RPG (or dismiss it as little more than a gimmick).  In other words, according to his very definitions of what makes a game an RPG, it is almost impossible to be innovative and remain one!

Except that he's kind of right.  Depending on where you set the threshhold for what constitutes a major innovation.

Nothing is ever going to be as big a new thing as the invention of roleplaying games themselves.  D&D was built on some wargaming background sure, but what they did with it made it a whole new hobby that never really existed before.  Aspects of it had, but they put it together and created a whole new concept.

And the concepts as we know them today have remained pretty damn stable.  Variations on the basic structure have taken place, but by and large I've seen nothing on the order of creating an entirely new hobby.

Anything that was similarly revolutionary, would likely in turn only somewhat resemble RPGs as we know them.  

The closest real equivalent that I can see, is the creation of the CRPG and adventure genres with Rogue and Adventure.  They took some of the basic building blocks of RPGs and D&D in particular, and created an entirely new type of game that has since gone on to develop independently of RPGs themselves, though they dip back in the well to varying degrees, much as some RPGs have dipped back into the wargame well when it came to creating more tactically and strategically interesting games.  

Everything else is pretty much just refinement and variations on the same basic concept.  D&D was inventing the toaster, every thing since has been more about tweaking the toaster to do different things.  Everybody's heard about how Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, not many people have heard or care about the countless people who've evolved the light bulb into the form we find on the store shelf today unless they're electrical engineers.

The main difference is jsut in the level of engagement with the mechanics of things.  RPGs are somewhat unique in that the essentially require all of their end consumers to be the equivalent of an electrical engineer, so as a group we tend to care more about those minor evolutions and refinements and where they came from, than you might find in other sectors.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe closest real equivalent that I can see, is the creation of the CRPG and adventure genres with Rogue and Adventure.  They took some of the basic building blocks of RPGs and D&D in particular, and created an entirely new type of game that has since gone on to develop independently of RPGs themselves, though they dip back in the well to varying degrees, much as some RPGs have dipped back into the wargame well when it came to creating more tactically and strategically interesting games.  

Wouldn't Magic: the Gathering meet this criteria? Especially as it isn't really a RPG, unless you consider it like Pendragon where everyone plays the same profession.  It certainly draws from the genre and has stories based around it.
It was a major innovation and spawned a whole new related hobby.
=

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only real MECHANICAL innovation ever made to the RPG was Amber's truly diceless strategic-competitive play, and that was a one-shot (no other game has really followed in its footsteps; a few of them pretended to but always fucked it up by trying to get some kind of a replacement for the roll of dice, whether it was some gimmick or some kind of beancounting).

That is in fact what Nobilis runs on: a roll-over system without dice. The real difference to Amber isn't the division of the attributes into what a character can accomplish effortlessly (the ratings) and how much further he can push himself if necessary (the pools), but rather that the game quantifies the difficulty of every action and resolves them mechanically just like diced RPGs do.

Quote from: J ArcaneNothing is ever going to be as big a new thing as the invention of roleplaying games themselves.  D&D was built on some wargaming background sure, but what they did with it made it a whole new hobby that never really existed before.  Aspects of it had, but they put it together and created a whole new concept.

And the concepts as we know them today have remained pretty damn stable.  Variations on the basic structure have taken place, but by and large I've seen nothing on the order of creating an entirely new hobby.

I'm extremely suspicious here that you've got a circular definition that if something is significantly different than D&D, then it isn't a role-playing game so it doesn't count as innovation.  For example, LARPs, computer RPGs, and online RPGs (from MUSHes to MMORPGs) are all largely separate hobbies from tabletop at this point.  Story games like Baron Munchausen and Pantheon, or later ones like Polaris or A Thousand and One Nights are quite different as well.  

Even within traditional tabletop RPGs, this seems doubtful to me.  If we compare:

1) Wesely's Braunstein scenarios (circa 1967)

2) Basic set D&D dungeon crawls (circa 1977)

3) Ars Magica in full troupe style with Whimsy cards (circa 1987)

I'd say there is as much difference between #2 and #3 as between #1 and #2.  Traditional tabletop RPGs have changed enormously from when D&D first came out -- particularly in the concept and mechanics of character.

Two LJ posts of mine:

RPG Design Innovations, Part 1

RPG Design Innovations, Part 2

Quote from: jhkimTraditional tabletop RPGs have changed enormously from when D&D first came out -- particularly in the concept and mechanics of character.

I'd disagree with "changed".  I'd be more inclined to suggest that tabletop RPGs have expanded to cover more ground.  I think a lot that happens at modern D&D tables would not seem alien to a time-displaced Little Beige Book player from the 70's.

Quote from: jrientsI'd disagree with "changed".  I'd be more inclined to suggest that tabletop RPGs have expanded to cover more ground.  I think a lot that happens at modern D&D tables would not seem alien to a time-displaced Little Beige Book player from the 70's.

If anything there may be less of a culture shock. I'm given to understand that D&D was far more freewheeling back in those days. Gygax and Arneson's campaigns significantly deviated from one another on a number of mechanical and social levels, apparently.

Quote from: jhkimI'm extremely suspicious here that you've got a circular definition that if something is significantly different than D&D, then it isn't a role-playing game so it doesn't count as innovation.  For example, LARPs, computer RPGs, and online RPGs (from MUSHes to MMORPGs) are all largely separate hobbies from tabletop at this point.  Story games like Baron Munchausen and Pantheon, or later ones like Polaris or A Thousand and One Nights are quite different as well.  

Even within traditional tabletop RPGs, this seems doubtful to me.  If we compare:

1) Wesely's Braunstein scenarios (circa 1967)

2) Basic set D&D dungeon crawls (circa 1977)

3) Ars Magica in full troupe style with Whimsy cards (circa 1987)

I'd say there is as much difference between #2 and #3 as between #1 and #2.  Traditional tabletop RPGs have changed enormously from when D&D first came out -- particularly in the concept and mechanics of character.

1)  You're not thinking foundationally enough.

2)  You're underestimating the flexibility of OD&D and the way in which it was actually played to a pretty silly level.

jrients is wise here.

Quote from: J Arcane1)  You're not thinking foundationally enough.

2)  You're underestimating the flexibility of OD&D and the way in which it was actually played to a pretty silly level.

jrients is wise here.

Conversely, I think you're underestimating the flexibility of the Braunsteins.  If you think that they were just moving pieces around on a board, you're totally wrong.

Quote from: jhkimConversely, I think you're underestimating the flexibility of the Braunsteins.  If you think that they were just moving pieces around on a board, you're totally wrong.

And I think you're going out of your way to miss the point I was trying to make based on some percieved slight that was never intended or placed in the text of it.

The point remains valid however, regardless of your personal prejudices towards the assertion, that if you set the bar of innovation at the event of inventing roleplaying itself, then basically everything that's come since is going to fall short.  Inventing the toaster, versus inventing the bagel setting.  

In a way, you even agree with it in your post, you've just gotten wierdly defensive about it's core truth.

EDIT:  To borrow a line, "So what I said was true, from a certain point of view."  

I would also point out that I don't think there's even remotely anything wrong with evolution over revolution, and in fact I tend to prefer it.  I think it's important to remember what's come before and worked well.  With CRPGs for example, I think they would do well to dip back into the well of the games which spawned them more deeply and more often.

I would also point out that there's nothing that I have seen that's really changed rolepalying as we know it, which would be another good bar to set.  All we've really got are variations on mechanic and theme, none of them necessarily an objective improvement over the other.

Whatever.

As I said before, there are innovations which first appeared a long time ago, but only recently achieved widespread notice, however you want to define that--number of titles using the innovation, the amount of discussion it gets, number of copies of games sold that use the innovation.

Going from John's list, there are a number of innovations that seem to be getting wider use and wider notice these days, even if they first appeared a while ago. As well many of them are appearing in more elaborate form.

* Mechanics for Social Resolution--yes, there were reaction tables from the start, and later there were skills like Fast Talk and Oratory, but games like HQ, Burning Wheel, DitV, The Dying Earth, and Exalted 2e have elaborated the concept and turned "social combat" into a meatier mechanic.

* Directed Rewards--dating back at least to Marvel Superheroes, but canonized in games like The Shadow of Yesterday with Keys, and Burning Wheel with Artha

* Instant Rewards (or more accurately IMO, instant mechanical character development)--in Polaris, DitV, Sorcerer, and probably a bunch of others

* Meta-Game Control for players--increasingly fashionable, extensive, and enforced/spelled out mechanically, e.g., The Mountain Witch, Polaris...probably SotC though I haven't read it.

* Freeform Character Traits--Over the Edge may have been the first, but Hero Wars/HQ, DitV, Risus have popularized them more recently. Furthermore HQ is becoming a family of games while also apparently spawning a side branch known as Other Worlds (Mike Holmes et. al.)

Do I enjoy every one of these innovations? Hard to say without looking at specific examples; as the examples go, some seem to work better than others. But to my eyes, even if not all these concepts are completely new, their widespread visibility is.

Quote from: jhkimConversely, I think you're underestimating the flexibility of the Braunsteins.  If you think that they were just moving pieces around on a board, you're totally wrong.

This is the first time I've heard of Braunstein. Outside Wikipedia, where can I learn more?

Seanchai

Quote from: GrimGentThat is in fact what Nobilis runs on: a roll-over system without dice. The real difference to Amber isn't the division of the attributes into what a character can accomplish effortlessly (the ratings) and how much further he can push himself if necessary (the pools), but rather that the game quantifies the difficulty of every action and resolves them mechanically just like diced RPGs do.

Yup, that's precisely what I said; which is why Nobilis is in fact much more similar to a standard RPG than Amber, and isn't really "innovative" in any meaningful way (unless you count "figuring out replacements for dice" as innovation, which I don't).

The fact is that its really really difficult to make anything REALLY innovative and still have an actual RPG.  Innovation tends to be a mutation that creates something new and different from RPGs, not something that happens within RPG systems themselves.

Like I said, the actual innovations WITHIN RPGs are almost all innovations in format, layout, structure, or marketing, not actual innovations in the actual game itself.

RPGPundit