What have been the big innovations in RPGs?

Hmm. Innovation really just means something new, without necessarily meaning an improvement. So you could break this down all sorts of ways: major rules innovations (e.g. from class/level to skill), approach innovations (e.g. game-oriented to story-oriented), social innovations (e.g. the Internet), publishing and distribution innovations (e.g. the Internet, the OGL, word processor and DTP software, PDF, POD, etc.), and probably more.

For me, rules innovations (universal mechanics, skill systems, etc.) and accidentals like the kind of minis are the least important and interesting. I think the big innovations are:

• The Internet - which affects all sorts of things: forming communities, Q&A, reviews, shopping (including out-of-print markets), publishing, distribution, viability of smaller markets and interest groups, online play, et cetera.
• The OGL - Its impact can hardly be overstated, regardless of whether it is legally necessary (which is a muddier legal question than some might think, IMO). In any case, the OGL removes uncertainty, and if its widespread adoption is any indication, the restrictions it imposes seem to be relatively unobjectionable.
• Self-Publishing Technology - making it possible for more people than ever before to put out good quality books and PDFs

El Mahdi said:

If the entrenched belief system devolped by the gaming society is that of an improvisational enterprise, how is using a scientific approach to the social system to change that system a fair and proper application?

Click to expand...

The two aren't related. It's merely pointing out the area of inquiry for the science should not having its' scope defined by one source.

Not that I agree with what you said, but using your own logic, maybe you can try and answer that question. I don't agree there is such a thing, but if the society has decided there is, what gives you the right to change it? (As long as it's not a belief that's morally wrong.)

Click to expand...

Ah, well it is a limited viewpoint and does deride others. I am pointing out that the scope of roleplaying is larger than the scope held within one highly espoused definition regarding it solely as improvisational storytelling.

Personally, I don't believe there is any "entrenched belief" that roleplaying is an improvisational enterprise, or more specifically "only" an improvisational enterprise, as your post seemed to imply.

I believe games are both a mechanical (rule expression) enterprise and an improvisational enterprise. But, I also think that individual gaming groups fill the spectrum between the two - and none of them are wrong.

Click to expand...

That's cool and I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me about the expanse of roleplaying theory. For the second paragraph, while I agree that is what games are I was specifically referring to the act of roleplaying with the term you also use, not gaming. Games aren't necessary for improvisation nor for roleplaying as they exist outside the gaming hobby. I am saying expressing a rule or following one is necessarily a scripted, not improvised act and is included in the definition of roleplaying.

I completely disagree that there is any entrenched belief system (or common entrenched belief system) within the society of roleplayers other than we all like to play RPG's - in the many and varied ways in which we play them. Saying there is some entrenched belief system within the society of roleplayers, let alone one that needs to be changed, is akin to saying there's an entrenched belief system among the society of humans that believes life is only a dream. There may be some who do, but it could hardly be defined as something entrenched within the society, and far beyond anybody's perview to declare it needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

You're free to believe that. I'm not going to try and dissuade you from your opinion. IME, I find from looking at the games designed in the last few years, including 4e, WH3e, the proliferation of 1-page RPGs, as well as the repetition of particular terms used within the community, that I see a change in how people not only define RPGs, but roleplaying as a whole. This limited viewpoint redefines what games created, what designers are willing to publish, and what will be branded "objectively bad game design". It's no conspiracy, simply a large group of people who have decided on one truth by denying, or perhaps not even knowing any other. Philosophical disagreement is central to living IMO. Any theory that refuses criticism isn't much of a theory in my book.

JRRNeiklot said:

But many, many people used it because they were unaware that they didn't need it.

Click to expand...

You insult their intelligence and understanding of the law.

No need for a license. The d20 companies signed a license to do something they already had the power to do.

Click to expand...

As has been noted - that is in theory. Practice is a different matter.

The mechanics are not covered by copyright - but the particular verbiage used for things may be IP. That means the particulars of terminology and names might all be IP. Names of some classes, names of spells, names of feats, and game terms (like, say "Attack of Opportunity"), stat blocks, layouts of charts and tables - all might be IP. You're not sure which bits would hold up in court, and which wouldn't, because this hasn't been solidly tested before, and WotC sure isn't going to help you. And you're a small fry, and WotC has access to a powerful legal department.

Do the terms "risk management" or "reduced labor" mean anything to you?

JRRNeiklot said:

As long as no patents or copyrights of another company is used, material can be produced that "works with" another companies game. No need for a license. The d20 companies signed a license to do something they already had the power to do.

Click to expand...

IANL, so I don't know for certain about such things. But it seems to me that using the license was a good way to cover their es even if it was technically unnecessary. Keep in mind how easy it is for a big company to completely destroy a little company with a lawsuit, regardless of the merits of the suit. The license, I think, minimized that possibility by eliminating the question marks related to using d20 material-- and all for free, as well!

Removing that threat without the need for lawyers or expensive licensing was a HUGE plus for the little guys.

Thanee said:

Guitar player! Now that's an innovation. If only others had thought about that one...

Click to expand...

While I obviously wasn't entirely serious, there is an innovation that I've often seen attributed to U2 and that is the particular guitar tuning that The Edge uses.

Another reason I mentioned U2's guitar player is that he's one of three guitar players that were picked for a recent documentary about the great guitar players in our times (the other two being Jack White and Jimmy Page).

Anyway, I guess there's a slight difference between 'big innovation' and 'being very influential', but it is a foggy line, imho.

Umbran said:

Names of some classes, names of spells, names of feats, and game terms (like, say "Attack of Opportunity"), stat blocks, layouts of charts and tables - all might be IP.

Click to expand...

Copyright the name Green Goblin, I want a quarter everytime sombody says it.

There are some IP issues that must be considered but it can get a little ridiculous. The concept of attacks of opportunity go way further back than the OGL.

Proper names certainly fall under this category. Bigby's Clenched Fist is protected by whatever entity owns the rights to Bigby. Other games will have to leave that name out of any similar spell.

In a business with money and careers at stake I understand the excess caution but that doesn't make it any more meaningful.

JRRNeiklot said:

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. By "scam" I meant that there is no reason you'd even need the OGL or GSL to produce content for 3e or 4e.

Click to expand...

Need? Technically, no. But I already outlined why you would want to use the license rather than publishing compatible material without it.

JRRNeiklot said:

But many, many people used it because they were unaware that they didn't need it.

Click to expand...

I was one of those people who used the license. I published d20 stuff for a couple of years. I knew exactly what the license was, what it meant, and why I wanted to use it. The other publishers I interacted with were the very same way. You're simply wrong here.

JRRNeiklot said:

As long as no patents or copyrights of another company is used, material can be produced that "works with" another companies game. No need for a license.

Click to expand...

This is precisely the sort of armchair lawyering I was talking about. IANAL, but my understanding is that IP law is far, far more complex than you're trying to make it out here. It's easy to say "you can't copyright mechanics" and such things, but when you're actually considering publishing, putting your money and time on the line, having a safe haven is a very comforting thing. As Umbran pointed out, there's enough grey area here that you can't just charge in and expect to be vindicated in the courts in the event there's legal trouble. Can you even afford a lawyer? That's the first question.

JRRNeiklot said:

The d20 companies signed a license to do something they already had the power to do.

Click to expand...

No they didn't. For one thing, the license specifically allows you to use a large portion of their copyrighted text, which you absolutely could not do without it.

the_orc_within said:

IANL, so I don't know for certain about such things. But it seems to me that using the license was a good way to cover their es even if it was technically unnecessary. Keep in mind how easy it is for a big company to completely destroy a little company with a lawsuit, regardless of the merits of the suit. The license, I think, minimized that possibility by eliminating the question marks related to using d20 material-- and all for free, as well!

Removing that threat without the need for lawyers or expensive licensing was a HUGE plus for the little guys.

Click to expand...

This is a big part of it, right here.

El Mahdi said:

Saying there is some entrenched belief system within the society of roleplayers, let alone one that needs to be changed, is akin to saying there's an entrenched belief system among the society of humans that believes life is only a dream. There may be some who do, but it could hardly be defined as something entrenched within the society, and far beyond anybody's perview to declare it needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

Well, life could be a dream. Sweetheart. Sh-boom, sh-boom. Ya da da da da da... da da da da da da.

Thanks a lot for getting that song stuck in my head.

Hobo said:

Well, life could be a dream. Sweetheart. Sh-boom, sh-boom. Ya da da da da da... da da da da da da.

Thanks a lot for getting that song stuck in my head.

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for getting that song stuck in my head. Sincerely. It makes me think of Clue, and that makes me happy.