Li Shenron said:
I wouldn't consider new mechanics an innovative thing, unless they really opened up seriously different gaming options (not just shortcuts to fine-tuned characters).
Metamagic, prestige classes, feat trees, the skill system, and even spontaneous casters all can be considered pretty innovative. But after the core book it is more difficult to find something that really fits the definition.
Perhaps the most innovative idea was also the less fortunate in sales: Ghostwalk. Other recent books are slightly innovative (Magic of Incarnum, Weapons of Legacy) but only partly.
Yeah, re-reading my post, I seem to be implying that innovation only exists in rule mechanics...I should have broadened the scope more.
There are different ways a company can be innovative, Let's look at a few from an RPG perspective.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE: WOTC/HASBRO seem pretty straightforward in how their creative shop, marketers and senior management work. Unless you consider being relatively flush with cash an innovation...which in the RPG business...I suppose is.
MECHANICS: D&D 3E did introduce a lot of new mechanical innovations to the D&D brand. It also codified existing rules under a central universal mechanic. Whether this is innovative is debatable, as it can be argued that WOTC was simply making D&D catch up with other games that had incorporated these design elements years earlier. I'm not a game designer so I'll leave that to smarter people than me to judge.
MARKETING: This is where I have a little more experience. WOTC did make some substantial attempts to broaden it's marketing appeal, particulary by tying it's core game into the Star Wars franchise. It also tried to broaden it's appeal within computer gamer/fantasy fan culture through tie-ins with Robert Jordan's books, as well as rather innovative computer games and an upcomming Mass Multiplayer thingy. Smart marketing -- sure. Innovative -- no. It's more and indicator of the relative cash position and market share.
BUSINESS STRATEGY: A lot of tea-leaves being read here. As I mentioned the OGL was extemely innovative and far reaching and played a part in revitalizing the hobby (how major a part remains debatable). The D&D movie project was a disaster (and, IIRC, something taht WOTC had little control over) but that was a huge strategic gambit to increase overall brand awareness (I could have filed this under marketing, I guess). After an initial push to expand the D&D brand presence the company seems to be coasting along comfortable in it's market position. One area where WOTC has shown a general closed mindedness is in exploiting the font of creatitivity they launched with the OGL. Nothing keeps WOTC from reincorporating material that other publishers successfully developed as part of revitalizing their core brand. My guess is that in-house politics limits this options as the designers on the payroll -- don't like seeing their work superceded by some smaller third party opperation.
CREATIVE CONTENT: Innovation in creative content is like wheels on a car -- it's expected as opposed to prefered. Even so D&D has played it's creative content very conservatively to a very narrow interpretation of the wider game experience. Very conservative indeed.
I guess the ultimate litmus test for creativity is whether something a company does radically alters (improves) the play experience of it's customer base/audience. That definitely happened in 2000 -- and continues to happen in smaller pockets thanks to a busiess decision that occured in 2000, but really, since those early days WOTC has been happy to play within a rather narrow set of guidelines.
Not that there's something wrong with that. Many an executive would consider that sensible management for a secotr leader. I wonder about the strength of the company's feedback mechanism to adapt to market change...though perhaps it's very strong, and I'm just off base.
