So when should a publisher ditch d20 and develop their own system?

[rgard]

So, you are still finding D20/OGL to have value in moving product then? I thought that it had been pretty well fished out (at the very least, a hurdle to even get it into the distribution chain.)

Yes, but to be honest, I don't know how long it will last. If you go by what folks post here, you'd think it died in 2003.

 

[Zoatebix]

Could you clarify the use of the word "invented" in this context, please?

I'm curious about this as well.

I'm just a whipper-snapper and I'm rather interested in learning the history of my hobby. So does Ghostbusters by WEG and the mechanic for how a ghostbuster recovers brownie points count as theme-focused rule that predates Vampire's humanity?

Does early Ars Magica or anything by GDW (they published so much stuff - they're bound to have a theme-focused something-or-other somewhere in their catalog, right?) have any rules that are focused enough and predate Vampire? How about RuneQuest?

I've never read the text to Ghostbusters, Ars Magic, RuneQuest, or any early Storyteller games besides Werewolf 1st ed., so I'm really relying on your opinions, but what - if anything - did Vampire do differently?

 

[eyebeams]

You seem itching to pick an indie vs. mainstream (or, more specifically, indie vs. WoD) fight, and, yes, grabbing content from my website certainly put me off guard for a sec. I'm not really interested.

If you're not interested in bringing it up, don't make statements whose implicit values are contradicted by your own practice. Just sayin.'

But, all I was talking about was Mearls comment about GM-centered, players-along-for-the-ride play, which seemed to me to pretty much describe the typical RPG experience, especially '90s-era games. StoryTeller, originator of the Golden Rule, seemed a good example, but you could also include a lot of AD&D2e content, GURPS, and HERO play, too. To use Forge terminology (and I apologize, because I know you don't like the Forge much), I'm talking about Illusionism.

Except that the supposition that this is what games were like in the 90s is mostly a falsity. I mean, I know that it's *also* trendy to listen to the opinions of a guy who literally couldn't make a D&D campaign work if you paid him and a guy who belives playing Vampire has neurophysiological effects, but has anyone actually independently fact-checked their opinions about what gameplay with these Naughty Systems is like?

The funny thing is that I did. (I also studied D&D and came away with strong indications that most groups lack the competence to play by the rules as written.) I visited conventions as a n observer, took notes and did multiple interviews.

My results gelled in an experience which was summed up in the process described by this post:

http://shootingdice.blogspot.com/2006/07/basic-process.html

To boil it down, conventional RPG sesions of virtually all types (this was especially evident in the Mage and Demon games from the weekend I really got into this, but has precedents I examined elsewhere) don't consist of "players along for the ride" at all, and the conventional notions of how groups improve are very much mistaken. In fact, gaming generally boils down to a set of proposals and counterproposals to resolve a scene where players' offers are as important as GM fiat. While there's de jure GM authority, de facto authority is in the hands of the group as a whole, based on their consensus process. Groups get better when the negotiation/consensus process improves; rules knowledge and "agenda" are by and large elements of this and secondary to it.

As an aside, I strongly suggest that people who want to know about gameplay really start examining games they *aren't* playing or running.

It's interesting to see that RMap concepts were in a WoD supplement. Has WW used it in any other products since?

You means besides every new corebook and location book?

 

[eyebeams]

I'm curious about this as well.

I'm just a whipper-snapper and I'm rather interested in learning the history of my hobby. So does Ghostbusters by WEG and the mechanic for how a ghostbuster recovers brownie points count as theme-focused rule that predates Vampire's humanity?

Does early Ars Magica or anything by GDW (they published so much stuff - they're bound to have a theme-focused something-or-other somewhere in their catalog, right?) have any rules that are focused enough and predate Vampire? How about RuneQuest?

I've never read the text to Ghostbusters, Ars Magic, RuneQuest, or any early Storyteller games besides Werewolf 1st ed., so I'm really relying on your opinions, but what - if anything - did Vampire do differently?

I'm talking specifically about the use of visual relationship maps to sort relationships between NPCs and factions. I'm not talking about relationship maps with other purposes. There might be the odd predecessor and there are certainly nonvisual equivalents, but the WoD games integrated this into routine design.

Ghostbusters is pretty much the grandfather of every system of the late 80s and 90s though, so credit for many, many developments belong to it. I suppose the question now is whether Ghostbusters should now be considered one of those Naughty Systems where players are "along for the ride."

Actually, I can only think of one mass-market instance where Buzz' statement is noncontroversial: the 1e Dragonlance modules. Railroading, script immunity and largely predeterminded results were a matter of course.

 

[buzz]

If you're not interested in bringing it up, don't make statements whose implicit values are contradicted by your own practice. Just sayin.'

Please do not make any blanket statements about my experiences, or try to tell me that I'm wrong when I'm relating my own experience. The only one bringing these issues up is you. All I really wanted was for Mearls to explain more about what he meant.

You means besides every new corebook and location book?

Malcolm, I don't follow WoD products, okay? All I have is a free PDF of the nWoD core book, and it doesn't talk about RMaps. I was just asking a question.

 

[CaptainChaos]

Luckily for us WotC is forging ahead with such cutting edge innovative titles as Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, and a third attempt at Star Wars d20...

A hit, a very palpable hit.


This thread is pretty entertaining, though I must say I can't keep track of what Eyebeams even thinks he's arguing about anymore. It seems like a completely different conversation.

 

[eyebeams]

Please do not make any blanket statements about my experiences, or try to tell me that I'm wrong when I'm relating my own experience. The only one bringing these issues up is you. All I really wanted was for Mearls to explain more about what he meant.

You repeated ideology. If you don't want a "Hey, you're repeating ideology!" then, well, make a better-supported statement.

I'm not saying a thing about your experiences. I merely pointed out that you pretty much duplicated a feature of a game you backhandedly expressed a low opinion of. I certainly wouldn't say it's my business to explain it or hypothesize how that all works together in your head.

That's not to say I wouldn't be interested, though.

Malcolm, I don't follow WoD products, okay? All I have is a free PDF of the nWoD core book, and it doesn't talk about RMaps. I was just asking a question.

I answered it. One might ask if you say don't follow WoD books, what might inspire you to make some sort of judgment about them.

 

[Piratecat]

The air is so full of thinly-veiled aggression in here that it's amazing anyone can find enough breath to speak. Time to stop. If you're arguing to a person instead of about the subject, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your posts. Doing otherwise will likely get you removed from the thread.

If this is somehow unclear, you know where to find me.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

Ghostbusters is pretty much the grandfather of every system of the late 80s and 90s though, so credit for many, many developments belong to it.

Can you be more specific? Which developments? I never thought the Ghostbusters RPG was very popular, or even played on a large scale, much less studied for its innovative efforts. Although, I was only working as low man on the totem pole at a game store in the early 1990s, and I never cracked the cover of a Ghostbusters product. Never heard much about it beyond the fact that it existed (and never sold in our store), which is why I'm amazed and curious. I really want to hear more on that subject.

My admitted guess is that most similarities are coincidence. Gaming often reinvents the wheel, and in my experience, concurrent development (two people working on the same idea at the same time, unbeknowst to each other) is VERY common.

Believe it or not, I was working on a new RPG system near the end of the 2E days, before 3E was announced and certainly before I started work for Kenzer and Company. Yet, my system was incredibly like the basics of D&D 3E, except you also rolled for hit location. Doesn't mean that one influenced the other - things just happen that way.

That was my first experience with concurrent game development, but I've seen it many times since then, in many different ways.

 

[Glyfair]

I think there is a market out there for RPGs that rest heavily on the GM as storyteller and the players coming along for the ride.

While the system doesn't do this, the big Heroquest adventure arc does this (specifically Gathering Thunder) and seems to be what the fans want. Of course, many of these are "worship at the altar of Greg Stafford" types.

I got it and was amazed at the design of the big heroquest. Go along with Kallyr and see the sites. The adventure essentially tells you what the players might see, and has a few areas that basically give the PCs some busy work that have no effect on the adventure.