Greetings All,

Since the infancy of role-playing, way back when the term 'Fantasy Wargaming' was considered synonymous with 'RPG', there have been preconceived notions of what constitutes a proper game. Now what one gamer might mean by 'game' can, and often does, vary from group to group. Too, it will likely depend largely upon the sort of game, and rules found therein, that is being played, not just the setting or even the milieu. Yet what is considered to be a role-playing game has undergone many changes over the years since D&D was first published. The rules of play have evolved and matured, often along with the players. Which brings me to the reason for this post.

Given the variety of styles and milieu of role-playing game that have been developed here at The Forge and are currently under development what do you think the future of role-playing games will bring?

I realize there have been many trends, not just in Indie game design, but also in the mainstream of the hobby. Much has changed, from D20 and the OGLs to the ability of game designers to use the Internet to get their games to a wider audience than they might have been otherwise able too just a decade ago. Keeping that in mind. . .

What direction do you foresee the games of the future taking?

Do you think that the theories currently discussed here will have any impact on them?

What sorts of innovations in game design and play would you like to see?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

There's room for a game - or rather lots of games - that provide useful advice to folks involved in freeform "simming" and to people interested in a bit more structure for their gaming.

Greetings,

Looks like I am going to have to stir up the ant pile.

Ok, 70+ views and 1 response. Not bad. But, people, if you can find the time to argue about whether or not Monopoly is a RPG you obviously have something to say about the direction RPGs are going, could take, might take, or possibly should have taken.

Or do those engaged in such arguements have no true opinions but rather prefer to engage in pointless debates purely to hone their debating skills? If that's the case then, by all means, remain silent. Otherwise your input and opinions would be much appreciated.

Unless you think that RPGs have no future. That there are no innovations waiting in the wings because, like Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Even so that's an opinion. Let it be known.

Thanks all.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Bruce Baugh wrote: There's room for a game - or rather lots of games - that provide useful advice to folks involved in freeform "simming" and to people interested in a bit more structure for their gaming.

I think we're going to see a lot more RPGs like Monopoly.

No, I'm not kidding.

I think a lot of this issue got hashed out in the thread on Holographics, oddly enough.

Also, when a person sees the next evolution, doesn't he go off and make it? That is, I don't think anyone knows. Or the question would be moot, and we'd be pointing at that visionary.

Mike

I agree with Bruce, except that I'd substitute "system tools" where he said "advice."

Yeah, I've said this before. And yeah, I'm working on it.

- Walt

Hey

Christopher (Kester), you wrote,

do those engaged in such arguements have no true opinions but rather prefer to engage in pointless debates purely to hone their debating skills? If that's the case then, by all means, remain silent.

Hey Kester,

I'm not half as concerned about the evolution of rpgs as I am about the evolution of the rpg gamer. The level of awareness among gamers as to the possibilities offered by existing games (and I suppose games yet to be designed) needs a severe boost. I consider The Forge to be a nice comfy ray of light shining down upon the path out of the gaming dark ages.

-Chris

But, people, if you can find the time to argue about whether or not Monopoly is a RPG you obviously have something to say about the direction RPGs are going, could take, might take, or possibly should have taken.

Well...I didn't spend time on that Monopoly conversation, but I've got something to say here.

When I think about the post-Elfs/post-Pool Narrativist game designs baked at The Forge, what I see are various mechanical schemes that in one way or another basically render unto the player a firehose of unregulated creative power over setting and conflict. My own design, The World, the Flesh, and the Devil is one such game.

What I'm interested in seeing are more nuanced and sophisticated power redistributions that still provide for the collaborative creation of story that characterizes Narrativism. Dust Devils, I think, is brilliant in how it treats a character's success in conflict as a distinctly separate output of resolution from who gets to narrate the outcome. But I think there's still an incredible amount of room to explore here. 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, and mechanics that maybe even allow players to seek, cultivate, and work to protect the various powers that suit their personal taste.

Paul

quot;Paul Czege
What I'm interested in seeing are more nuanced and sophisticated power redistributions that still provide for the collaborative creation of story that characterizes Narrativism. Dust Devils, I think, is brilliant in how it treats a character's success in conflict as a distinctly separate output of resolution from who gets to narrate the outcome. But I think there's still an incredible amount of room to explore here. 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, and mechanics that maybe even allow players to seek, cultivate, and work to protect the various powers that suit their personal taste.
Paul

Paul Czege wrote: 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, and mechanics that maybe even allow players to seek, cultivate, and work to protect the various powers that suit their personal taste.

Greetings Mike,

Humbling as ever.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think a lot of this issue got hashed out in the thread on Holographics, oddly enough.

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, when a person sees the next evolution, doesn't he go off and make it? That is, I don't think anyone knows. Or the question would be moot, and we'd be pointing at that visionary.

Greetings Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote: Hey

Christopher (Kester), you wrote,

do those engaged in such arguements have no true opinions but rather prefer to engage in pointless debates purely to hone their debating skills? If that's the case then, by all means, remain silent.

That was obnoxious and provocative. Don't do that again, please.

Greetings Walt,

Walt Freitag wrote: I agree with Bruce, except that I'd substitute "system tools" where he said "advice."

Yeah, I've said this before. And yeah, I'm working on it.

EDIT: This cross-posted with Kester's Apology and his following posts.

I take serious issue with your "Respond to my thread, or you're a weenie!" attitude, Kester. This is the second time you've polled for responses when your initial question did not result in a furious debate or discussion.

Realize that what you believe to be the next great debate might not hold any interest or be so vague or full of assumption as to be undiscussable.

I, personally, think the question here is...well, inane. If we knew where RPGs were going, we'd be there already. It's like asking, "What new technologies do you see emerging in ten years time?" or "What television show do you plan to be watching on Wednesday nights in five years?"

Nobody can know the answer, and guesses are usually sadly incorrect. Especially given something that is wholly system and design like an RPG.
I'd prefer to deal with current "technologies" that can actually be worked with and discussed usefully.

In fact, the only question that is useful in this sort of discussion is, "What design are you working on right now?" and "What do you want a system to do that a current system doesn't?"

Greetings Mr. Edwards,

C. Edwards wrote: I'm not half as concerned about the evolution of rpgs as I am about the evolution of the rpg gamer. The level of awareness among gamers as to the possibilities offered by existing games (and I suppose games yet to be designed) needs a severe boost. I consider The Forge to be a nice comfy ray of light shining down upon the path out of the gaming dark ages.

Greetings greyorm,

greyorm wrote: In fact, the only question that is useful in this sort of discussion is, "What design are you working on right now?" and "What do you want a system to do that a current system doesn't?"

Kester Pelagius wrote: I've noted many people speak of the innovations in games like Donjon, Universalis, and Elfs (hope I remembered that right). But do games like this form a trend that will be followed or are they merely unique games that will probably be underappreciated by the larger gaming hobby?

The future?

We'll stop making D&D clones and calling them mainstream; we'll take mainstream and make games of it!

We'll junk the 'game store' concept and create something like a coffee house with gaming in it!

Networked console games will finally add enough social interaction to catch up with MUDs and MUSHes. (I love .Hack//Sign!)

We'll get beyond DFK and finally develop games that aren't just resolution systems, they'll be social activity games!

We'll get beyond this idea that it has to be printed and on a shelf to be a 'legitimate game.'

People will engage in role-playing games without having a pretext of civil war reenactment, creative anachronism, or sexual aberration.

Kids will come out of a theatre saying 'how kewl' a certain character was and be able to be playing it as a game before they get to the parking lot.

Someone will finally make a Collectible Card Game that is both very much a role-playing game and popular with Magic: the Gathering collectors.

People will take roles they're familiar with to new and 'unsafe' arenas using role-playing games without thinking their going to screw up their own psychology or go kill people or have to learn something.

Deep within the heart of the digital age, people will discover how much fun it is to sit down, in person, with other people and use their imaginations together. (No tools, cheats or otherwise.)

People will find it possible to use role-playing games as a healthy alternative to a life that cannot have (it'll work for more than just handicapped kids, y'know).

People who can't write their way out of a paper bag will be able to enjoy the feeling of creating something really good 'with a little help from their friends.'

Someone will create a visual stimuli rig based on reflectivity to project realtime three-dimensional illusions onto your retinas so that you can do something you never tried before, just for the sake of doing it.

I'll be a millionaire.

Who can say what the future will truly bring? Who predicted Vampire LARPGs? Heroclix? Collectible card games? Who knows what will 'catch?' Certainly not me.

Fang Langford

p. s. But I really like that last one.

[edit: to add one and correct speelings!]

Hey Kester,

Kester wrote:

Would you agree then that, perhaps, there exists a erroneous misconception amongst most gamers that once a game ceases to be published and supported that it is no longer worth playing?

Kester Pelagius wrote: So, greyorm, what game(s) are you working on now?

What type of system do you plan to implement for use in it, and how did you come to choose that system over the others extant at this time?

quozl wrote: I think we're going to see a lot more RPGs like Monopoly.

No, I'm not kidding.

b_bankhead wrote:

quozl wrote: I think we're going to see a lot more RPGs like Monopoly.

No, I'm not kidding.

I agree, a Monopoly like rpg would fit the profile of the rpg playstyle I have derived in my upcoming essay "Rpg Structure and Issues of Recruitment".

Greetings greyorm,

greyorm wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: So, greyorm, what game(s) are you working on now?

"Orx" and "Ninja Kitty, Samurai Dog" are the two full games I'm working on. I'm also finishing development on two supplements for Sorcerer, each semi-divergent in certain aspects from the main rules.

Greetings,

b_bankhead wrote:

quozl wrote: I think we're going to see a lot more RPGs like Monopoly.

No, I'm not kidding.

I agree, a Monopoly like rpg would fit the profile of the rpg playstyle I have derived in my upcoming essay "Rpg Structure and Issues of Recruitment".

Kester Pelagius wrote: Are we talking a fixed board RPG or a pseudo-board game, perhaps one with tiles that can be placed on the table top to create the environment?

*searching memory for examples*

Ah, ok... will it be more like Hero Quest or Magic Realm? Or did you perhaps envision something more along the lines of Talisman?

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Greetings greyorm,

greyorm wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: What type of system do you plan to implement for use in it, and how did you come to choose that system over the others extant at this time?

Orx uses a die-scale system: that is, your effectiveness is measured in the size of the die you have to roll. It was originally designed to model the idea of becoming less effective at any task the more effort you put into it and failed at: that is, a failure in combat results in injury; but you can have social "failures" as well, which leave you feeling 'off' for the rest of the day; and intellectual failures, where you just feel more and more stupid, and keep doing dumber things, being more forgetful, etc.

That's obviously an over-simplification of the whole system, but AFAIK, there is nothing similar to this system out there. Likely because I designed the system to support how the game should play. As the system is designed for the game, this explains why I chose it over anything else.

Greetings quozl,

quozl wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Are we talking a fixed board RPG or a pseudo-board game, perhaps one with tiles that can be placed on the table top to create the environment?

*searching memory for examples*

Ah, ok... will it be more like Hero Quest or Magic Realm? Or did you perhaps envision something more along the lines of Talisman?

I have no idea why any of that would make a difference. Could you explain what you have in mind?

Kester Pelagius wrote: 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.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

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 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

I cross posted with this:

quozl wrote: ...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.

M. J. Young wrote: it intrigues me that this "I game" concept (which we emphasize) is part of Quozl's prediction

Greetings quozl,

quozl wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: 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.

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

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

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 . . .

hix wrote: 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.

Kester Pelagius wrote: 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

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).

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

quozl wrote: 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".

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.

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.

M. J. Young wrote: Kester, it's fun to speculate, but is it really practical?

Greetings hix,

I found this one interesting.

hix wrote: 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.

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

Hi Ron.

Yeah, your thoughts on "writing a supplement" echo my overnight conclusions. I'm still not sure if it constitutes 'drift' or a 'heartbreaker' but I think in evolutionary theory the term is 'incrementalism'.

Write a supplement (that has an original take, not just plagiarism) detailing these ideas, see if it becomes popular. If it does, chances are it becomes part of the canon - and gets incorporated into the next official edition of D&D. And the game changes once again from its original incarnation in the early/mid 70s.

Enough of these creeping changes and I suppose you have a new game. Which is raising a lot of questions about what a game actually is that my brain will have to deal with at some point.

Paul Czege wrote:
. . . 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.

Greetings Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

RPGs have been evolving the last 3 decades. From simple stats hack and slash dungeon raiders to epic worlds and dimensions. From many companies to a few. A free market, now dominated by the megacorp dominating Hasbro owned ,Wizards of the Coast vs Wizkids toy/model line.

Thus making more independant RPGs pop all the time. Gamers waying of saying their are other RPGs besides D20.

In the future I think RPGs will become a hybrid of online gaming mixed with RPG traditional themes. The process is already in motion. I like the traditional dice kind more myself than the electric stuff. Table top rpgs give a person more freedom. Unfortunatly the average person is farely lazy and would rather have somebody create a RPG world for them, than have to design one themself. Plus people are forgetting how to use their imagination and let other people dream stuff for them.

Traditional Rpgs will not survive business wise, if Hasbro keeps dominating the market as it is. Game shops can not afford the high prices they keep charging forever.

Independant RPGs are the ones who hold the future of this kind of Hobby. Where it goes from here depends on us gamers as a whole. I see collectively players are looking for something new and different. Game designs keep coming out that trying to put a change to old mold of RPGs of the past.

As a designer myself I think we need more story driven worlds with backgrounds interesting enough that you want to explore. Not have to force yourself to explore just to promote some sort of action or avoid bordem. There to many generic rules rpgs and limited setting games out there.

My challenge to the future is to make and have RPGs that have backgrounds so interesting they evolve with time. You keep your interest because you come to love that world too, not just your character.

Sincerely,
Kaiza The Crimson Wolf

Hi Kaiza,

We have several such game-worlds already. Are you familiar with Glorantha?

Best,
Ron

No. I have not heard of that one. I never said there are not a few cool rpg worlds out there. There just needs to be more made in the future.

Kaiza The Crimson Wolf
"Always good to be in the hunt."