This rant was something I posted to a thread on rpg.net in regards to originality, innovation, etc. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=555618707ef2dd0564940f08674d04d0&threadid=45579)

This rant is a little more "gut level" and emotional than what I usually do, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think the points are still pretty valid. Pretty much this just sums up Mike's Standard Rant #1 + Ron's Fantasy Heartbreakers + my own feelings.

....My only beef is when folks come up with their uber-idea(game, book, movie, whatever) and haven't done any homework into researching how others have done it well or not. When we're talking games and folks scream "Revolutionary and New!" most of the time they're rehashing old stuff. D20 is many things, but it is not really "revolutionary", it takes the basic idea behind the Interlock system from R.Talsorian(Dice+Stat+Skill vs. TN) and adds the "Nifty power list" from White Wolf(Feats) both of which outdate D&D3E by 10 years at least.

Now, I've used D20 as an example, but I'm sure you've seen plenty of games out there, whether someone's home brew, a freebie off the net, or some game in a store, where it basically is D&D, GURPS, or Whitewolf in some form or another. My only trip with folks is that "Nifty Setting" + "I can't believe its not D&D/GURPS/WW!" (TM) System = Crap.

My only contention with folks and their "new ideas" is that I ask folks to really consider what they are doing and think about it. If I can play your game(Setting+System) and get the same experience from, say GURPS, why would I choose to play your game? Which is not to say that I consider any of the aforementioned games to be particularly great(or necessarily terrible), but I demand that folks take a little more time and attention to the actual play experience they want.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer that System Matters and that it can make far different play experiences, but most folks tend to just juggle around the names of stats and skills("Ah, but my game has Toughness AND Endurance, see? This dial goes to 11!"), play with some probabilities and call it a day. Most folks don't actually question the sacred cows of roleplaying, but simply take it as "How it MUST be", stuff like:

-Character Death/Removal from play
-Everything must be modeled/simulated according to "reality"(gotta have a strength stat, right?)
-Player knowledge and control is limited to player character knowledge and control
-The GM must keep things secret from the players
-The GM has the right to cheat, but the players don't
-Characters need to take a long time to improve
-Characters need to improve
-There needs to be a "skill/power" list, defining everything exactly
-Only the GM can set up and pace scenes

Where do neat ideas come from? What will be the next nifty idea?

It will come from folks who challenge the sacred cows and do things their own way. Consider some of the more recent games that have done so, from the Pool, Inspectres, octaNe, Dust Devils, the Riddle of Steel, and Trollbabe. Look at their concepts: Universal, Ghostbusters, B-movies, Wild West, Fantasy, and Fantasy, respectively. Each cover genres covered by other games, but the execution, the system gives very different play experiences.

All I'm saying is that if you want to push the envelope, look at folks who have already done so. The horizons may be much further than you previously thought.

We now conclude this rant and return you to your scheduled program. :P

Chris

Bankuei wrote: I'd like some of the more recent and new folks who are doing stuff in the Design forum to read this, and really consider these questions:

-What is the most innovative games you have seen? If you know there's other nifty things out there, why haven't you checked them out?
-What does your game do different than any other game, and how does that unique aspect support your desired gameplay?

Being one of the mentioned "new faces"..

-What is the most innovative games you have seen? If you know there's other nifty things out there, why haven't you checked them out?

-What does your game do different than any other game, and how does that unique aspect support your desired gameplay?

When we're talking games and folks scream "Revolutionary and New!" most of the time they're rehashing old stuff.

...

My only trip with folks is that "Nifty Setting" + "I can't believe its not D&D/GURPS/WW!" (TM) System = Crap.

If I can play your game(Setting+System) and get the same experience from, say GURPS, why would I choose to play your game?

I think that you might be taking what Chris said slightly out of context. I don't *think* he's saying anything that falls into the categories you've mentioned is crap, but to claim that anything that falls into those categories... that's crap. You cannot really claim to be innovative unless you know that your game is something new. You cannot know that unless you've done your research.

The rant, from what I'm reading, isn't against games that play it safe, and are NOT revolutionary and innovative, but instead against games that claim to be innovative when they are, in fact, treading the same territory.

Take, for example, Recoil. Please? Just give it a try? Err, sorry. Take my own game-in-progress, Recoil as an example. I came up with the idea entirely on my own, based on a snippet of fiction I wrote while bored between classes. It is an original idea, because I did not take it from anything else. But is it innovative? Nope. It seems that Whispering Vault has already covered the territory, and covered it well.

But does that mean I should give up? I think no. Cyberpunk covered a given "genre" (for lack of a more appropriate term) quite well, but it didn't sit well with some. Me, for instance. Now, Shadowrun covers much the same territory, with many of the same themes. If you remove the whole meta-human and magic returning concepts, and make it a purely cyberware, technology-based game, I would still enjoy it more because the themes and focus sit better with me. Shadowrun did a valid cover of the same territory (with some obvious additions). So do I think that Recoil can do the same. The basic concepts are the same, but the specifics differ, and I think the differences are enough to give my game a solid foundation.

To answer Chris's questions (though I hope I'm past being considered "new" despite still being one who has yet to complete a game..):

The most innovative games I've seen: The Riddle of Steel, for it's approach to Combat, and moreso it's approach to player-driven stories; the SAs. Sorcerer, for it's method of encouraging the players to be more proactive in description and color, as well as a way to make the story move (kickers and bang-driven story) InSpectres for it's totally player-based story (Never have I seen a system that encourages the GM to sit back and let the players tell HIM the story.) and the Pool for the concept of allowing the players to dictate the results of their character's rolls, a concept I'm shamelessly borrowing for Recoil.

What does my game (currently Recoil, as Mage Blade is shelved) do differently? Admittedly, not a whole lot. But I'm not really trying to innovate a lot here. I'm trying to put together a good system which combines solid concepts from a variety of sources in an integrated manner to drive the goals of game play, and explore a given concept (champions trying to save reality from those who would destroy it) from a different angle.

Hey Lance,

I dig ya. And I'm cool with the rant (it being a rant and all, stuff gets said that isn't necessiarly, y'know, what the speaker (writer) meant.)

But if that's true, then lookit all the guys pouring through GURPS and going "on page 192 he's talking illusionism--on page 74, it's not what's going on here!?"

Nothin's going on. Someone writes a 200-page game and their add-copy says it's original: big surprise? Someone 10 years ago is flailing around tryin' to figure out how to describe role-playing or to dash off some 'good' advice and suddenly 'GURPS is designed/intended/whatever to support illusionist play?' There're people who write letters to big corporations claiming their adds are false advertising becuse a Bud doesn't materilize the Sweedish Bikini team.

Brian Gleichman did a buncha reviews of games based on their stated design goals and mechanics--'cept the problem was he mostly couldn't find any (stated goals--he found th mechanics). When there was, does a claim of originality (and does, you know, TFT really count? I was gaming then and *I* didn't own it) get superceded by in-depth notes? The other way round?

Since most games don't come with serious designer notes and statements of intent I know all we got is the add-copy--but really that's just what they thought was cool about their game.

If ya look at Heartbreaker-#159 and go "done ... done ... done ... done ... okay, moderately new magic system--but hey, there's no other game that puts it all together like this" that's like saying yer aunt Mercy's award winning recipie for chocolate meat-loaf just isn't innovative because meatloaf and chocolate date back to the 1865 West-Indies Meatloaf for Coco Compact (even tho they've never been mixed before).

It might be true ... but does it *get* you anywhere ... and if it turns out that the chocolate meatloaf has a following then ... is it still crap? Is it even rant-worthy? who's bein' wronged?

I got no problem with sayin' do your homework--but ... is all that's wrong with these games the foreward? Or are we sain' "these really just aren't up to standard?"

If the latter's the case, then don't bother with the add-copy and just stick to "I saw yer game and there is no reason to play it."

-Marco

I think in the above "crap" was unfortunate rant short hand for "waste of time...why didn't you just use GURPs/d20 etc...because what you have isn't remotely better enough than those for me to take the time to learn it when I already know these"

I understand what you're saying, Chris, and it's frequently a concern of mine when I hear about people's game systems. I think it all boils down to the fact that they are so focused on providing a different system that they don't think about what they want the system to do. If all you really want is an easier/more realistic/more flexible way of playing another game system, I think that prolonged tinkering may be better than developing a new system (sort of what I'm doing for Changeling). But, if you are trying to take the genre in a new direction or provide a means of facillitating a certain style of playing, I think developing a new game is a good idea. I would certainly encourage that.

In my own game, Kathanaksaya, my goal is to facillitate a style of character creation and roleplaying that is centered on story (in the literary sense). It is blatantly and unashamedly Narrativist in its goals and design, and I like it that way. Of course, there are Simulationist elements as well, but this has more to do with the internal workings of the character as opposed to anything within the setting or genres that could be applied to the game.

I am, however, hesitant to call it truly innovative. It was after I had finished the initial draft of my game that I heard about Universalis, but after reading up on it, I was satisfied that my game was significantly different enough to warrant its existence, so I continue working on it to this day.

Hey Val,

Well, GURPS, y'know, is broken (Supers). Mutants and Mastermind's (D20) broken too. JAGS: broken. Every system is broke somewhere for something. Meebe if what you really want is AD&D with new races and a different magic system it hits the right spot. All those big name games you already know won't do *something* (armor degredation, usually, thank God).

But I'm not sure I buy the "it's crap because I already know D20" argument anyways: These people (the game creators) already know about the big names too. They know D20. They know White Wolf. their claim of innovation is referant to those games--the ones you mentioned--not Whispering Vault or TFT. Their whole pitch is why you should play Twisty Corridors instead of AD&D.

-Marco

If I understand you right, Chris, you're saying (parallel to Mike's Standard Rant #2, as you mention) that the constant claim of originality is very annoying, because it usually masks a lack of originality. But where I'm a bit unclear is why you think it's like this, or what you think people ought to do about it. Mike's thing is that game designers need to study huge numbers of games so they know the field; maybe you think that too, but it doesn't seem to be your focus.

My interpretation of your rant, and please correct me where I go astray, is that you think a game with "I can't believe it's not" as a system might as well sell itself as such, i.e. as a Neat New Setting for GURPS or whatever. In addition, you think that when people look to do exciting things in gaming, they ought to focus on tipping some sacred cows, which generally isn't going to happen through a cosmetic shift of setting. Have I got that right?

Personally, I'd want to extend this in a slightly different direction. While I agree with Marco that a lot of this is just advertising copy, that isn't a sufficient explanation, because you can certainly advertise on other grounds. That is, instead of saying, "All new system! Breaks new ground! Like nothing before!" you could say, "Why use that boring old universe for your games, when you could use this amazing, nifty, and detailed one? Come to Blargavulia, land of romance, elves, vampire unicorns, and monkeys with flamethrowers!" or whatever. You don't have to base ad copy on originality. You could also base your ad copy precisely on being a supplement: "You've played GURPS (tm) but you find the combat system isn't realistic enough? Well, with Violence and Hideous Behavior (tm) that's all changed! Just use this instead of the system on pages XX-XX of the GURPS main rulebook, and you'll be scraping giblets off the walls in no time!" My point being: advertise what's good and different about your product, and if that's not its originality, don't claim that it is. I'd like to see RPGs get past the idea that originality is necessary for quality; in point of fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a game that explicitly bills itself as a complete "fix" of a very original but broken game. Admittedly, there'd be some legal issues, but that's life in the US.

-------
As to innovative games, I don't know the field well enough to say, actually, nor do I get to play enough games anyway.

As to my game's innovations, I genuinely believe that the way Shadows in the Fog uses Tarot cards for magic is new.

Greetings,

Bankuei wrote: -What is the most innovative games you have seen? If you know there's other nifty things out there, why haven't you checked them out?

Bankuei wrote: -What does your game do different than any other game, and how does that unique aspect support your desired gameplay?

Bankuei wrote: -What is the most innovative games you have seen?

-What does your game do different than any other game, and how does that unique aspect support your desired gameplay?

Ian Millington's Ergo was the first thing that blew my mind; it's an early essay on the possibilities of GM-less play. Totally influenced Ever-After/Storypunk/GMisDead in no uncertain terms.

My all time top 5 (in the order I discovered them) are:

1. Ergo
2. Fudge
3. Continuum
4. Nobilis
5. Universalis

By the way, here's a paragraph from my still-in-the-works Universalis review:

Let me forego the usual bluster and get right to the point: Universalis, in a manner similar to Rebecca Sean Borgstrom's Nobilis, represents a revolution not so much in ideas as achievement. For years, designers and theorists postulated that fortuneless, resource-distribution-based roleplaying was not merely possible, but could be built into a complex rule system, without resorting to freeform play. But nobody actually sat down and did it… until Nobilis. Similarly, for years, designers and theorists have postulated that GM-less play & world-building could also be supported by a system specifically designed for it (see Ian Millington’s Ergo, an early advocate for GM-less, "collaborative" roleplaying). But again, nobody stepped up to the plate to design such a system, though games like Soap, Pantheon, Baron Munchausen, and Once Upon a Time skirted that territory.

Until Universalis.

Hi folks,

Glad to see that my random rant at least has people thinking. I'll try to address some of the points that folks have brought up.

Marco-

You are right, I am mixing messages. The point of the rant is to get folks to really think about:

1) What is unique about their game? (or more specifically, "What unique gameplay experience does your game provide?")
2) Are there any assumptions that are preventing them from exploring, further developing, or delving deeper into things that might further their creative agenda in creating that unique experience?

Why should people think about it? Simple- When you design, you've got some really cool-ass idea in your head, some form of gameplay that you think will rock. If you're going out of your way to make a new game, there is some form gameplay experience that you're looking for that another game does not provide. What is that experience? How can you provide it by using the same set of design criteria/assumptions?

That's like doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

In fact, if no one really responded to the rant, but takes the idea of really thinking about what their gameplay experience goal is, and how they want to acheive it, that's good enough for me.

Think of the rant as less of an argument to prove a point and more of a "stirring up waters" to get people thinking. In actuality, I don't really care about the ad copy and selling points of games, I was just using it as a point to show games that failed to understand that "juggling stats and probabilities" alone, does not make for a new game.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: -What is the most innovative games you have seen? If you know there's other nifty things out there, why haven't you checked them out?
-What does your game do different than any other game, and how does that unique aspect support your desired gameplay?
...
The point of the rant is to get folks to really think about:
1) What is unique about their game? (or more specifically, "What unique gameplay experience does your game provide?")
2) Are there any assumptions that are preventing them from exploring, further developing, or delving deeper into things that might further their creative agenda in creating that unique experience?

Bankuei wrote: -What is the most innovative games you have seen? If you know there's other nifty things out there, why haven't you checked them out?

-What does your game do different than any other game, and how does that unique aspect support your desired gameplay?

Hello,

This thread is wandering badly. Not only are some people failing to answer Chris' direct questions, but there seems to be some confusion among the terms "innovative," "good," and "unusual."

Chris, I suggest providing more direction, perhaps emphasizing just what you mean by the term, so that the thread is not merely a string of "see term, have reaction, hit keys" posts.

Best,
Ron

Hi folks,

My point is NOT innovative=always good, my point is that if you're taking time to do an entirely NEW game, that (I hope) you are planning to do something different(and better, at least in your opinion) than what else is out there.

Like I said before, if someone read the rant, and takes the thought with them and applies it on their next design, to really think about what they're doing and not just blindly, "But of course we need death mechanics, what would be the point of play?!?" without thinking, I'd be fine with it.

Unless someone has something meaningful to contribute in regards to design, I think the point has been made and we can drop the subject.

Chris

Well, I don't pretend to know very much about RPG and probably I miss somethings but here two points I failed to see address in any RPG I know (at least, I can say I know a lot of them):

- Civilization(TM)-like gaming element. I would like a game where the actions of characters can directly influence the society/culture under it, and vice-versa. Currently, the only game I know that have try this approach is Torg, in a very artificial way, and multiverser, in a, helas, too much superficial way (the characters are influenced by the universe visit, but can barely influence the universe itself). Don't take me wrong: I want more than a simple narrative progression in the campaign. I really want to be able to handle things like Science Discovery, Building Wonders, and Politic and Philosophical Revolution at the RPG level.

- A system that handle action resolution on the basis of mood instead of action/situation. Currently, the mood is either to have multi-resolutions system with a one situation / one rule (like combat rules, pick-locking rules, craft rules, magic rules) or universal resolution systems (like... well, most recent systems recently). I'm currently working on a generic system that aim more on the selection of specific mechanics based on the mood of play instead of the physical action. It's a little bit like Torg again, where you choose to read a different card side if you are either in a climax scene (give advantage to the enemy) or a generic scene (give advantage to the PC) but directly in the mechanics. This is may be reverse to the current rpg direction (where we all try to have one common rule for everything), but still, that's the way I running my game for some years now. It's just not easy to put it in written words.

Again, I don't that no game have those elements. I just don't know them. So, I'll be very happy if you can't point me to such games. Thanks in advance!

Oops! Sorry... May be I should also answer to Chris' questions:

About what I find innovative about RPG? Well, a lot of things, just like a lot of things are also just old-remake of other games. I doesn't regards innovative as a major thing for buying a RPG. However, I'm looking for game that answer my needs as a role-player or are simply well-done and interesting. My must pleasing buy in term of system recently (well, in the last five years) is certainly Nobilis, which is the first game I buy that used diceless in a form that I like, with a setting that is convenient for. But hey, my best RPG is still Nephilim:Revelation, the latest french version of Nephilim, but this have nothing to do with the system. I just like the setting, which can be seen just as a big mess of everything around, very rich. Nothing original but very well done.

What's new or innovative in my own RPG? Well, I don't really know. My system (only available in French currently) is not really innovative, at least it's not what I aim for, and I once though that the only thing innovative was the dice roll (until I heard about Feng Shui, that's it ;) ). But currently, the rare characteristics that can make it unique is an expandable/retractable skill lists and a leitmotiv/temptation heroes points system. Nothing really new, but an innovative way to do old things. Also, there is some interchangeable optional rules, which allow a GM to change rules for their narrative needs. The only innovation here is may be that was one of the rare system that is designed with this in mind.

So, briefly, there is really nothing innovative currently in term of role-playing experience. I just do a system that will please me and allow me to play the kind of games I like to play (multi-genre a la Moorcock's Eternal Champions series) with a lot of varieties, both in setting elements and mood.

I think that some straw men are getting thumped here. Who precisely is claiming these revolutionary innovations?

Well, I am. :) Fabien, check out the Gamma World Player's Handbook this fall to see if the community chapter offers any of what you're looking for. Actually, it's not as purely revolutionary as all that, though it is a significant development (I think) in the state of the art for community description and play. But I'm well aware of the debts I owe to Pendragon, Vampire, and Underground, just for starters, as well as the author's debts to work in neural networking and its application to social modeling.

But seriously - sure, in writing ad copy I'll say things like "brand new", but I can't think of many of my colleagues who are actually claiming really radical innovations in advertising and stuff. So I want to know what the target here is. It matters to me if what we're actually talking about is folks boasting in forums or fanboys raving on.

Greetings fabien,

Salutations, Bienvenue à la forge!

Ayez besoin de votre jeu traduit en anglais, bien, vous sont dans la chance. M'ai ai obtenu un lien pour vous!

En fait je l'avais l'habitude pour traduire ce que vous lisez maintenant. Ainsi, s'il ne se comprend pas, excuses. Mais je l'ai pensé serais une bonne illustration de la façon dont cela fonctionne. Voici le lien.

So much for that. :)

fabien wrote: What's new or innovative in my own RPG? Well, I don't really know.

fabien wrote: I just do a system that will please me and allow me to play the kind of games I like to play (multi-genre a la Moorcock's Eternal Champions series) with a lot of varieties, both in setting elements and mood.

At Ron's suggestion, I'm posting one of my PM's to him about "off topic" discussion in this thread. It's *slightly* modified 'cause it's out of context.

[Ron had asked what "innovative" meant if it didn't mean both "new and good"--i.e. was it differnet or just redundant to 'different' or 'new' ]

I was just pointing out (what you hit on) innovative == ? (good, new, new&good?)

I think that just like indie doesn't mean alternative here, innovative shouldn't be tied to good.

Firstly, good is a *terrible* metric. Lotta people *love* Hackmaster. You can say it's not innovative. You can't say it's not good.

Secondly, while I respect the crispness of The Window, I'd hesitate to call it "good." As an RPG it's barely there. It is pretty original--but the mechanic of "roll under a six" isn't ... well ... all that and a bag of chips.

So I think that innovative, like universal gets chocked in with the marketing fluff. I mean, if I mix up a new pasta dish, that's innovative even if I don't invent new stuff to add to it (i.e. add oh, say, watermellon--something that has never been added to pasta before ... has it? I'm scared now, just thinking about it).

I don't put too much stock in "innovative" and I don't think anyone else should. Sure, if you wanna do something that's never been done before--rock on! But if that's your sole criteria for doing what you do I think the cart is pullin' the horse.

What Marco said.

Folks, I am pronouncing this thread closed. For people who are new to the Forge, that means don't post to it again. If you want to discuss something about "innovation," start your own thread and be very clear about what you're saying or asking.

I especially want to commend and welcome Fabien for his posts, and I hope we can follow up on them in new threads.

Best,
Ron