What is the next great evolution in RPG design?

[M. J. Young]

Kester, it's fun to speculate, but is it really practical?

I wrote an article nigh on three years ago, still posted at The Learning Fountain, entitled http://www.learningfountain.com/future.htm">The Future. In it, I observed a number of things about predicting the future.

The first is that nearly all predictions of the future are wrong. There are two essential reasons for this. For one thing, in projecting our expectations for the future, we always work from our concerns of the present. In the 1950's, disposable clothing was considered a wonderful futuristic concept; today, it would be considered an environmental nightmare. Most the things we looked forward to half a century ago (I'm almost that old) have ceased to hold much interest. For another thing, what will come is always based on the surprises. No one anticipated personal computers; yet the central computerized houses don't exist. AT&T was working on thousands of ways to route telephone service to you wherever you were (the Call Forwarding feature was demonstrated at the 1964 New York Worlds Fair--along with the Picturefone that isn't used because it eats more bandwidth than it's worth), but the cel phone was never expected to have this level of popularity.

The other is it isn't particularly useful to be way out on the cutting edge. How many games here at The Forge are breaking new ground? Now, how many of these have reached the mass market? Does anyone remember the Amiga computer? It was the first Multimedia computer in production, by most of a decade, and Commodore went out of business because no one saw any use for a computer that would show movies and play music. Being way ahead of the curve means no one understands what you're doing; and that means you don't have a market.

Of course, like everyone else, if I knew what really would take the gaming community by storm, I'd be writing that. That was in fact one of the reasons we created Multiverser--we thought we had something that would take the gaming community by storm, and be the next D&D/WoD/M:tG of the hobby game industry. Obviously, for whatever reasons, that has not happened. (Maybe we didn't have the marketing savvy?)

The future will come to us; looking ahead a month or a year is a good thing, but trying to guess the next big thing is a lost cause, and trying to look beyond that is sheer speculation.


--M. J. Young

[M. J. Young]

I cross posted with this:

...I think we'll see more RPGs where the level of character identification is more like Monopoly, in other words "me but I have superpowers" which is like in Monopoly where I play "me but I'm a greedy property baron". The "props" make the identification easier but are not necessary as any self-identified roleplayer can tell you.

Having just written that we thought Multiverser was the wave of the future when we published it, it intrigues me that this "I game" concept (which we emphasize) is part of Quozl's prediction. Multiverser really is about "me, but I'm this".

May he be proved correct.

--M. J. Young

[greyorm]

it intrigues me that this "I game" concept (which we emphasize) is part of Quozl's prediction

Just a historical note for you future historians out there: First Edition Immortal "way back" in '94 was deliberately aimed at the idea of playing "me, but I'm waking up to the supernatural power I really am."

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings quozl,

But the point being that each game provides for its own unique set up, some have static boards, some use tiles, and each have a set of rules that affect how the game is played and what can be done within the context of the game.

I see.  While that is all very interesting, that isn't what I meant when I said that I think we'll see more RPGs like Monopoly.  What I meant was I think we'll see more RPGs where the level of character identification is more like Monopoly, in other words "me but I have superpowers" which is like in Monopoly where I play "me but I'm a greedy property baron". The "props" make the identification easier but are not necessary as any self-identified roleplayer can tell you.

I apologize for the miscommunication.  From your prior statement, I thought you had read my thoughts on Monopoly in the "What are RPGs?" thread.  Please let me know if this is still unclear to you.

I read your remarks.  Just didn't necessarily agree with your stance and didn't really have much of anything constructive to add to the discussion, which is why I didn't post to the thread.  That is not to say your arguement isn't an interesting one, it's just not in accord with my own perception of what makes a RPG a role-playing game.

Take King's Bounty, for instance.  It is a game very much like Monopoly, you even have money and a banker.  However the goal of the game is not to gain a monopoly, you are playing Bounty Hunters out to collect bounties.  However, unlike Monopoly, you have a number of pregenerated characters you can choose for a Bounty Hunter.  Thus, quite literally, you are taking on a persona, whereas in Monopoly I am playing a race game in which the only choise I have is the type of playing piece I get to use.

There is no true 'persona' element to role-playing, save perhaps an imagined one, and then only if you want to play 'make believe'.  Or is there?  (I did give what you said some thought.)  Truth be told, all that any role-playing game is at its most basic is just that.  Make believe.  In fact role-playing games have existed far longer than we've had the term for them.  Yet the games we meld into each other, take on new forms, are adpated, eventually are given new shapes and forms, and thus evolve over time.

But what makes a RPG stand out is the rules to create characters, IMO, or at the very least the presentation of characters with statistics.  Many might disagree, but to me that's what makes a RPG a RPG.  You have to have statistics or other parameters that define the character you are playing, and allow for you to generate said character.

Conversely take the Storyteller games.  Are they really an RPG?  And by whose definition?  (Maybe we need a broader definition of role-playing game with categories?)

I can still recall when the answer most gamers would have given to that was a firm: NO!  And why?  The main reason I seem to recollect was to do with story telling being one of those things you did when camping, or sitting around ina dark room on Halloween, or some such.  But if I asked the average gamer that question what do you suppose the answer would be?  Of course that they are RPGs.

Maybe it's just me but I find that fascinating.

So, if I may, do you consider games like Stratego, Chess, Pachesi (Ludo), Snakes & Ladders (viz. Candyland), Shaturanga, Life, Risk, Axis & Allies, and games like them to fall into the same category of 'role' game you place Monopoly in?  Why?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[greyorm]

What's "Ninja Kitty, Samurai Dog" like?
...I'm thinking: A fun light hearted tongue in check kind of game.

Yep. I'm not too far with the design -- focusing my energy elsewhere for the moment, but that's my goal with it, anyways.

Sounds like you are emulating a complex social structure, or rather a parody of one perhaps?  (Ergo: Orx?)

Er, no, actually. Though I am exceedingly curious as to how you see this mechanic accomplishing such? (because it sounds like a very interesting idea)

PM me or start another thread about it!

[hix]

Way back on page one, Paul Czege suggested a system moderating the amount of power a player has to create, define and manipulate NPCs and events.

I envision games that grant and rescind power over the introduction of such things as new NPCs, locations, relationships, historical details, animosities, and power structures, to name just a few . . .

Since we're talking "future of role-playing", how about a possible future version of D&D that cross-pollinates with some of these ideas.

For example, players and GM choose a style of campaign - Hack and Slash, Political Maneuvering, Swashbuckler etc.

In a "Political Campaign" you'd earn more experience for achieving political objectives than defeating monsters. And therefore you'd become more powerful in this mileau* not by whacking orcs but by brokering a truce between two rival mountain clans. IOW, rewarding non-standard D&D behaviour.

That's the soft version. The hard version would establish that players have the ability to create elements of the game depending on how well they adhere to the agreed upon style. That their power to influence the game expands or contracts depending on how appropriate their contributions are.

Just some rough thoughts. Probably there are games that already achieve this or do it much better.

My point is that using a well established brandname to introduce concepts like this may be the easiest way to expand the mass market's awareness of "what's possible". And by exposing more people to new ideas, I assume you increase the chances of a paradigm shift in game design.

Steve.

* This example is courtesy of inverting our current game, which is highly political and yet the only way to gain power is by hunting monsters - a phenomena I'd never identified bugged me until I starting reading at The Forge.

[talysman]

Since we're talking "future of role-playing", how about a possible future version of D&D that cross-pollinates with some of these ideas.

For example, players and GM choose a style of campaign - Hack and Slash, Political Maneuvering, Swashbuckler etc.

In a "Political Campaign" you'd earn more experience for achieving political objectives than defeating monsters. And therefore you'd become more powerful in this mileau* not by whacking orcs but by brokering a truce between two rival mountain clans. IOW, rewarding non-standard D&D behaviour.

That's the soft version. The hard version would establish that players have the ability to create elements of the game depending on how well they adhere to the agreed upon style. That their power to influence the game expands or contracts depending on how appropriate their contributions are.

interesting... some of the ideas I've had for games recently (ever since that dratted "24 hour game" post! heh.) fall into a group of games I'm calling my "fantasy inversions" rpgs. they all resemble DnD (or, more accurately, TFT) to a certain extent: pseudomedieval adventure-fantasy, rewards for meeting challenges rather than role-playing, and so on; but each game will twist one classic FRPG concept. for example, one game called Malignment will focus on alignment issues in a weird way.

one of the other games (the one I was seriously considering starting 24 hours of work on) is called The Eternal Messenger. it's a standard FRPG with a TFT-like mechanic (roll 3 dice below stat to succeed, roll more dice for more difficult tasks,) but the characters are all messengers -- specialists in deliveries. they earn experience at a flat rate of 1 point per die of difficulty, even for combat... but earn much more experience for delivering messages, with a bonus for short delivery times and for each hazard along the route. and the players can ask for a more hazardous route to earn more experience points.

the future of gaming? probably not. I think a lot of what we see as gaming trends depends more on marketing by large companies combined with new young players entering the hobby: whatever there's a lot of in the game stores when kids become gamers, that's what they buy and what they become used to. right now, the trend seems to be shifting towards miniatures, for the same reason that splat books used to be the big thing (maximize sales.)

of course, since online publishing and indie games are more prominent now, maybe this time a heavy marketing push to maximize sales will have a backlash effect and the future of rpgs will be lots of focused small games. or not. the future is a fickle chyk.

side note on Monopoly-like rpgs: I dunno about this. rpgs based more on boardgames? maybe... I suggested this myself back during the mainstream discussions, but I'm not sure if it will be a Big Thing. as for rpgs that are more like "me but with superpowers", that could simplify some things, but that concept has been around a while and has never gained a huge fan base. I played in a "you with superpowers" rpg over a BBS back in '91 or '92, and I think the idea has been floating around for a lot longer than that, but you only see a few rpgs based on that concept. I think more people are interested in playing "my favorite tv/movie character, but with a different name" than in playing themselves with superpowers.

[quozl]

But what makes a RPG stand out is the rules to create characters, IMO, or at the very least the presentation of characters with statistics.  Many might disagree, but to me that's what makes a RPG a RPG.  You have to have statistics or other parameters that define the character you are playing, and allow for you to generate said character.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

This is the part that I think will change.  RPGs will not be all about characters.  Instead, they will be about players and the roles they play will be defined little more than they are in Monopoly (which are only defined as "money-hungry property barons" and that's not even explicit).

I have a lot more to say on this subject but it deserves a thread of its own and I need to make my thoughts a bit more coherent first, perhaps in essay form.  There's a lot to discuss.

[Thierry Michel]

Are you asking about the future of RPGs in general, or pen-and-paper RPGs specifically ?

I guess that, as more computer games like NeverWinterNights appear, traditional (pen-and-paper) RPGs will move towards the "low-complexity" end of the scale, with more emphasis on openness and flexibility.

(but it wouldn't be the first time that I'm totally wrong).

[Paul Czege]

Hey Steve,

In a "Political Campaign" you'd earn more experience for achieving political objectives than defeating monsters. And therefore you'd become more powerful in this mileau* not by whacking orcs but by brokering a truce between two rival mountain clans. IOW, rewarding non-standard D&D behaviour.

I think for it to work you'd need to do more than just change the criteria for earning experience. That's only half of the reward system. You'd need to adjust the nature of the payoff for leveling up as well. Paying characters for acts of peacemaking and other political triumphs with increasing combat expertise wouldn't achieve what you're after, I don't think.

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

What I meant was I think we'll see more RPGs where the level of character identification is more like Monopoly, in other words "me but I have superpowers" which is like in Monopoly where I play "me but I'm a greedy property baron".

I think we're still not getting it. I'm not at least. What you describe is Villains and Vigilantes. Or is there some difference that I'm not getting?

Mike

[clehrich]

To my mind, Thierry has hit the nail on the head

I guess that, as more computer games like NeverWinterNights appear, traditional (pen-and-paper) RPGs will move towards the "low-complexity" end of the scale, with more emphasis on openness and flexibility.

To put it more broadly, I suspect that the RPG field will increasingly divide into three big camps:

1. More of the same, i.e. continuations (perhaps under new names) of previous successful games.  Broadly speaking, this would be Heartbreakers in all areas.

2. Knockoffs, spinoffs, and tie-ins: games whose primary purpose is to cash in on the popularity of something in another medium, such as a film, TV show, anime series, current-events debacle, video game, etc.  I'd guess you'll see a lot of RPGs that imitate video games in particular, letting you do more gaming in a world you came to like and can visualise through a video game.

3. Games that try not to be either of these.  Here's where Thierry's point comes in, and the Forge: these are games which make a point of doing something that cannot be done as well in another medium.  Thus you've got the emphasis on moral premises, on extreme freedom, on reflexive play, etc.

I'd guess that the big counter-pole for a while yet will be video games, since game consoles are getting more and more common every day.

Don't know if this helps in any way.  Predicting the future is, as M.J. points out, fairly hopeless.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings MJ,

I've been trying to think of how to best answer yor post, and the best way I think I can do that is to concentrate on your opening question.

Kester, it's fun to speculate, but is it really practical?

Granted there will be a lot of voices for the 'depends' and 'probably not' category, but if you really think about how we humans operate, yes it is practical.  If only because we speculate about what the future may be like every day of our mortal existance.

We speculate about life after death, what our next pay check will be like (and how unforseen expenses may affect those gross earnings), what we want to wear for the day ahead, and what we want to eat at days end.

True, using your examples, and going by your article, we can wonder about the futility of past speculations.  But, in doing so, we are engaged in speculation.  Namely we are building a paradigm about future speculations based upon projections of the percieved correctness of past speculations.

And speculation is what evolutionary theory is all about, we project what we percieve to be adaptation that may lead from one form or another form.  In terms of gaming this can mean many possible things.  Perhaps a style of play, rule mechanic, or. . .  but then that's what I am asking you to imagine; to think about what the next great game might be.

As for whether such speculation might be right or wrong, does it really matter?  I don't think so.  And you're right, it can be a fun excersize.  :)

Peace, love, and happiness go with thee.



Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings hix,

I found this one interesting.

Since we're talking "future of role-playing", how about a possible future version of D&D that cross-pollinates with some of these ideas.

For example, players and GM choose a style of campaign - Hack and Slash, Political Maneuvering, Swashbuckler etc.

In a "Political Campaign" you'd earn more experience for achieving political objectives than defeating monsters. And therefore you'd become more powerful in this mileau* not by whacking orcs but by brokering a truce between two rival mountain clans. IOW, rewarding non-standard D&D behaviour.

I can almost see it.  A multi-genre game that allows for the (almost wrote in "users" hehe) players to dial-up (now where have I seen that term before) the style of play they want.  But all within the confines of a single rules set.

Hmm.  Probably require templates for the characters, choose the genre and style at the beginning, go the appropriate section, then decide on a template.  The template being little more than modifiers and skills to overlay on the base character, which could be generated by just about any method I suppose.

Ah, well, just thinking outloud.  Anyone else find this idea interesting?  Have a better idea of how to go about implementing it?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Kester,

If I'm not mistaken, those features are already implemented in many games, ranging from The Window, Universalis, and as far as can be told so far, Scattershot (in design). They are also implemented to lesser degree in more focused games such as Champions or Sorcerer. The only stricture that's not met is in hix's call for them to be found in D&D, which to my way of thinking is simply a matter of providing D20-based supplements that introduce them.

Best,
Ron