I agree with Sett that it's easy to overlook the genius of Gygax. D&D has been around for 30 years, and there's no reason to think it won't be around for 30 more. Not many games can claim that.

Playing D&D or any other RPG is unlike any other hobby. There are some similarities here and there, but the at the table, sitting down and playing experience is utterly unique. Not only that, but it seems to tap into some basic function. It's stood the test of time.

Quote from: KoltarNO - its NOT a lie of Pundit's, in the book The Fantasy Role-Playing Bibleby Sean Patrick Fannon (ISBN 0-7615-0264-5) the Braunsteins are specifically mentioned as what gave "birth" to D&D or at least they should be considered proto-Dungeons & Dragons or Roleplaying games.

Unless Sean Patrick Fannon is "Swine", Pundit's claim is still off base.  Given that he wrote The Fantasy Role-Playing Bible in 1995, years before the so-called swine even existed I'd suggest probably not.

Quote from: RPGPunditWow, Mike, I have to say almost everything you listed counts as stuff I can't stand about D&D 3e, most of them I find useless, and none of them do anything to enhance my own fun.

The vast majority of D&D players care to disagree, if the relative success of 3e vs. previous versions of the game are any indicator.

I mean, perhaps changes and innovations don't appeal to you, but that doesn't rob them of being innovations and improvements for the typical gamer.

Wow...that's weird.  It's like watching Pundit argue with someone else only the roles are reversed.

No offense, Mr. Mearls.  I just mean that usually he's telling people that while they might think it's a heaping pile of shit, there are obviously a lot of people out there buying/playing/having fun with D&D.

And now you're throwing that argument (with which I agree to a certain extent) right back at him.

It's bizarro thread...

Quote from: James J SkachWow...that's weird.  It's like watching Pundit argue with someone else only the roles are reversed.

No offense, Mr. Mearls.  I just mean that usually he's telling people that while they might think it's a heaping pile of shit, there are obviously a lot of people out there buying/playing/having fun with D&D.

And now you're throwing that argument (with which I agree to a certain extent) right back at him.

It's bizarro thread...

Not really, not if you've been paying attention to what Pundit is really saying most of the time.

BTW, Kyle asked if a game was ever written from a character's POV. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen may qualify. I think I've heard some things about Dictionary of Mu being written that way, too, though I doubt it stays "in character" all the way through.

Chronicles of Talislanta, although written purely as a background (no mechanics) is entirely in the voice of a wandering scholar/charlatan. But some parts don't maintain the illusion very well (e.g. a keyed city map that reads much like any other RPG keyed city map).

Quote from: mearlsThe vast majority of D&D players care to disagree, if the relative success of 3e vs. previous versions of the game are any indicator.

I mean, perhaps changes and innovations don't appeal to you, but that doesn't rob them of being innovations and improvements for the typical gamer.

I don't deny that the majority of D&D players today probably love things like CR and other gonzo-killing elements. They're very inclined towards the idea that RPGs should be "balanced" at all costs.

So yes, I'll recognize I'm in the minority.  To call that a really radical "innovation", on the other hand, seems pretty dubious to me.  I'm sure someone else who isn't as tired as I feel right now could probably point out other RPGs that pushed this idea of "balance uber alles" for a long time now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimSigh.  The fucking lies really start to annoy me.  Pundit, the claim that there have been any innovations in the hobby at all is not the same as saying that Joe Schmoe is more deserving of praise than Arneson.
...
Yeah, that person who said the Braunsteins invented roleplaying was a fucking moron.  Oh wait?  Who said that?  That would be no one because it's a fucking lie of Pundit's.

It wasn't advocated by anyone "important" (for game "industry" values of important, of course), but it has come up quite often on Usenet and various game forums over the years; usually as an anti-Gygax, less commonly a generic anti-D&D swipe.

Quote from: mearlsI agree with Sett that it's easy to overlook the genius of Gygax. D&D has been around for 30 years, and there's no reason to think it won't be around for 30 more. Not many games can claim that.

Indeed, although my appreciation of Gygax isn't entirely based on his role as a co-inventor, but rather for his unique vision that helped shape D&D into something drastically different from the public perception of "generic mediaeval fantasy". From a post I made on RPGNet (Who is the greatest name in FRPG history, and why?):

QuoteMy vote goes to Gary Gygax, but not necessarily for the reason other people have nominated him. It is likely that had EGG been absent from the wargaming scene in the late 60s, someone else would have eventually come up with the roleplaying concept. Brownstein games were already ongoing, and someone would have probably made the leap - maybe it would have even been Dave Arneson, in cooperation with someone else.

No. The reason I consider Gary Gygax the greatest name in FRPG history is his uniqe, whimsical and quirky vision of what the game could, and what the game should be. Anyone with a wargaming background and an interest in Tolkien could have created the game of heroic adventuring among dragons, wolves and giant spiders. But it needed the creative drive of Gary Gygax (working through himself or through his influence – e.g. in Rob Kuntz, Bob Bledsaw and others) to bring us the game of antisocial nobodies making a name for themselves in a world populated by carnivorous gelatine, giant amphibians, beholders and glaive-guisarmes, where dungeons don't make strict sense, but are a repository of the exotic and the fascinating.

In a respect, Gary Gygax is not the world's best known game designer celebrity. He is the unknown genius, the man everyone quotes but whose ideas have been thoroughly discarded and forgotten. Roleplaying - even in immensely popular games such as D&D 3.5th edition – bears very little resemblance to his original game. I wager to say later designers - the less famous TSR luminaries of the 80s, like Weiss, Hickman and Greenwood, have had more of a say in forming the mental image of D&D gaming than Gary did. It is probably a good idea to take the time and peruse his texts - whether in the OD&D booklets, the modules or the first edition rulebooks - to look at what he was doing and what he was attempting to say. It is an enlightening exercise, as it reveals the fruits of a highly active and fantastic imagination. Very much unlike what you would expect in "bog standard fantasy roleplaying", but very engaging nevertheless.

The old man of RPGs and his ideas are dead and buried. Rest in Peace.

Dave Arneson started with the Braunsterin things. Gary Gygax came into the story a little later. It was also the early 1970s and Hobbit and Lord of the Ringswere making a headway in popularity with their crowds.

 I'm not "anti-Gygax" either....however at the GenCons that I've been to , Dave Arneson has been a nicer guy and more of a socialable guy. Maybe not a big deal - but worth noting.

MMORPGs might be considered a "side issue" not an innovation. Its borderline for me. At least with those things  the terminology of our hobby entered mainstream usage in people's conversations.  When you mention RPGs - most people realize that there are two kinds  online and around the table top.


The BIG THREE innovations in 30 + years :

1) LARPS...and the spin-off ways of playing from them.

2) Open game License /D20 thing.
(Tho HERO system & GURPS did the attempt at universal roleplaying much earlier chonoogically speaking)

3) MMORPGS - popularizing the terminology and getting older, married gamers back into the mindset - hey when you got kids and a spouse its difficult to schedule an around-the-tabletop group once a week or even once a month.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarWhen you mention RPGs - most people realize that there are two kinds  online and around the table top.


The BIG THREE innovations in 30 + years :

1) LARPS...and the spin-off ways of playing from them.

2) Open game License /D20 thing.
(Tho HERO system & GURPS did the attempt at universal roleplaying much earlier chonoogically speaking)

3) MMORPGS - popularizing the terminology and getting older, married gamers back into the mindset - hey when you got kids and a spouse its difficult to schedule an around-the-tabletop group once a week or even once a month.

- Ed C.

It is good that Someone would recognize innovation if it bit them.

and I would like to add GMless to the list.
=

In my pants.

...

Seriously though, the definition of 'innovation' requires having a purpose in mind. A thing is not innovative unless it helps you achieve something you want differently or more effectively.

So what are the things you want to achieve in gaming, and how are the rules, gimmicks, or whatever, helping you achieve it or not?

Once we answer that, THEN we can talk about innovation.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerISeriously though, the definition of 'innovation' requires having a purpose in mind. A thing is not innovative unless it helps you achieve something you want differently or more effectively.

If the rules are written down and every player has (or can have) a copy of them.  
If the rules cover all (or close enough to all) imaginable situations that need adjudicated.
What purpose does a GM serve and why do we still think we need one to play a RPG?

Isn't that something to achieve in RPG gaming that board games have had for ages?
=

I'm not sure what prompted those questions. Perhaps you're still pushing Mythic, and I admit from what I've heard it sounds like a very interesting and perhaps innovative product. However those general questions can be answered in a variety of ways and I'll bet that Mythic doesn't really address all of them. If you'd like to field questions on Mythic, perhaps you could start a separate thread where we could discuss this.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't deny that the majority of D&D players today probably love things like CR and other gonzo-killing elements. They're very inclined towards the idea that RPGs should be "balanced" at all costs.

So yes, I'll recognize I'm in the minority.  To call that a really radical "innovation", on the other hand, seems pretty dubious to me.  I'm sure someone else who isn't as tired as I feel right now could probably point out other RPGs that pushed this idea of "balance uber alles" for a long time now.

I don't think CR gave players a sense that the DM should only throw encounters of a certain strength at them. I think CR gave them the vocabulary needed to say, "This encounter is unfair." It happened in previous editions of the game, but now players have a numerical rating attached to monsters that they can point to when making their case.

"Balance" in RPG R&D parlance means "balance between character options." It has nothing to do with monsters. Monsters go through design and get a CR assigned to them at the end. I have no idea why attaching a number that rates their strength from 1 to X does anything other than vastly improve* the game.

*Assuming the number is accurate and presents a scale that is easy to understand and usable.