What are the "Generations" of RPGs?

[Wik]

So, I was reading my new copy of Savage Worlds, and it made mention to "2nd generation RPGs". This is a term I've heard before, quite a few times, and I *think* I know what's being said, but I'm not entirely sure.

Here's what I think:

1) That the "Generation" term isn't necessarily chronologically-related, though when the game was released does come into effect. The term actually refers to the game's structure.
2) First Generation games are games in which a character's roles and abilities are strongly dictated by a character class.
3) Second Generation games are those in which skill choices and whatnot are selected by the player, often with a points system.
4) Third generation games are "rules-light" games that allow the player a great deal of selection in making his character.
5) Fourth generation games have either no rules at all, or a very light system that consists mostly of guidelines.

Am I correct in this, or do I completely misunderstand the term?

 

[Darkwolf71]

Well, I'm no expert on 'generations' of RPGs, but a simple reduction in rules is not neccisarily an advancement.

For a definate 'generation' you need something that is so profound that it encourages the entire industry to follow steps and 'evolve' in the same or in a similar way.

Second generation 'could' be considered as the broad systems that we have today. Things that started with GURPS. Now we have d20, BRP (Basic Roleplaing), and various 'mechanics systems' that multiple games are based on.

Third gen, would IMO be games that will follow D&Ds steps in combining the tabletop and digital worlds. (Assuming that this merger is successful.)

I may be totally off base (In fact most likely am.), but that's what I would think.

 

[Celebrim]

The division of RPG history into four generations, and even the term 'generations' itself, is somewhat contriversial. I personally disagree with it, as in fairness, the 'second generation' games consist of two very different sorts of games, and the 'third generation' games are consistant only if you narrowly define what games people were playing at the time. I also think that people who talk in terms of 'generations' tend to see it as a progression to increasingly advanced and more sophisticated forms. While there is some merit in that, in terms of game play, some of the more 'advanced' games technically turn out to provide generally inferior gameplay to earlier ones - which is why the early ones stick around.

I've seen two or three different descriptions of what even consitute '1st' and '2nd' generation, so I'm not even sure we can get agreement on an answer. Your answer in particular gives a progression that I don't think stands up very well, as what I would call a 'third generation' game (GURPS, Hero, Rolemaster) typically was very rules heavy, and the
'second generation' games take radically different approaches to the rules compared to D&D. (In fact, I would define the second generation of games primarily by the fact that they are all in some form, a responce to a percieved limitations of D&D.) Some of them are rules heavier ('C&S') and some of them are 'rules lite' (T&T).

Anyway, so here is my take.

0th Generation: 'Little Wars', parlor games, wargaming
1st Generation: D&D, TSR's other early specific genera games, other early genera games, and anything which is essentially an imitation of D&D initially, for example Gamma World's 1st edition.
2nd Generation: Games which in D&D's wake, that are specifically designed to address some percieved shortcoming in the D&D game system ('not realistic enough', 'not enough simulation', 'not enough customization' or conversely 'too arcane', 'too much dice rolling', 'not enough oppurtunity for story telling').
3rd Generation: A game which has been influenced by the lessons learned from the failures of the second generation. In particular, games influenced more by the design of RuneQuest than of D&D, and games which introduce rules intended to handle situations generally as a class of event rather than each specific situation with an individual rules. Following the 2nd generation trend, some of these are very rules heavy (Harn, Hero, GURPS, Rolemaster) and some of these are very rules lite (Paranoia, Toon).
4th generation: Games designed based on lessons learned from the 3rd Generation games, typically 'rules moderate' games which avoid complex simulationism in favor of faster gameplay and which avoid too much rules lite in favor of reducing the burden on DM judgement. (Also, rules lite proves to be an economically unsustainable trap, in that you can't sustain it with further sales). Often can be played consensually with little or no rules moderation (ei, no gamemaster). Sometimes involves different methods of arbitrating player conflict than dices.
5th generation: I would suggest that there is an emerging 5th generation of games which are influenced by what has been learned adapting RPGs to computers. In particular, these games are taking cue's from games like Fallout, Diablo, and WoW.

But, I'm not sure that 'generations' are the best description anyway, as D&D was arguably a 1st generation game right up until 3rd edition, when it hoped onto the 4th generation by way of design marriage. Also, you see some third generation games like 'GURPS' coming out before some second generation games, and then becoming a design trend. Also, you got to think that some of this isn't improvement, but rather just a fad - sort of like the 'ages' in comic books. Dark Age isn't necessarily better than Silver Age, it's just different.

 

[JDJblatherings]

1st Generation: D&D and a handful of other unique systems.
(D&D, traveller)

2nd generation: D&D reaction systems and refinements of 1st generation systems.
(Runequest, Rolemaster)

3rd generation systesm: versatile rule system
(GURPS, D20 system)

4th generation: play style/setting over rules.Storytelling games.
(Vampire)

 

[C.W.Richeson]

Most terms in this hobby, especially anything that categorizes RPGs, are just random designators someone thought was a good idea. There's no generally accepted scheme of 'generations' or anything and it's probably not worth the effort to try and force games into that designation.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Never thought much about it until just now. I think Celebrim is close but is providing for too many "generations". If it were left to me to define it I'd categorize them as:

1st Generation - D&D and it's first imitators. Games created before anyone had the first clue what RPG's really were or could be. Not designed - created. There wasn't really any "design" to be done. As it was an entirely new concept it was simply thrown against the wall in various iterations and whatever stuck there, stuck there.

2nd Generation - RPG's that were to some extent beginning to be designed. By seeing what worked, what didn't, and contemplating what actually could be, they included rules or approaches with genuine intent, planning, forethought. Yet they still involve as much random experimentation as DESIGN.

3rd Generation - RPG's with structure based more heavily in game theory from the bottom up, not in simply trying to fix/replace failed/malfunctioning portions of previous RPG's piecemeal. Games which ARE designed even though they may yet be based on old, traditional structures from previous generations.

Now, no matter whose definitions you use this isn't going to be the sort of classification that you can unequivocally assign a given game/edition into as it's all quite subjective. Or at least until you GET widely accepted definitions of what the categories of classification are and what the aim is in categorizing them along such lines in the first place.

EDIT: For my money it is, first and foremost, a CHRONOLOGICAL classification - hence the term "Generation" being used. Whether the resulting game was rules light/heavy, class vs. skill, or whatever is of secondary importance and interest. However, you can still have RPG's which won't cooperate with a generational approach to classification by virtue of being "ahead of thier time" or by ignoring/defying lessons learned from or revisiting previous generations.

 

[Celebrim]

Never thought much about it until just now. I think Celebrim is close but is providing for too many "generations".

I'd be happy with a three generation system, in so much as I think all of this is pretty arbitrary and too simplified. But I think that the fourth generation is 'real' and differs from the third in that the designers are by that point themselves RPG players with alot of experience rather than merely game designers with alot of experience. Third generation design tends to produce rules that are elegant to read. I loved reading GURPS books. But I didn't necessarily find them fun to play, because the system simply overpowered the game with too much simulationism. I know that I learned from those games that too much 'realism' could be a negative just as too little could be. I would suggest that the fourth generation of design was marked by a shift to pragmaticism over conceptual elegance; fourth generation games tend to be more elegant to play - designers learned from experience where they needed to stop with the trends that had been developing in earlier generations.

Of course, the next generation of games might be at least partially electronic, shifting that burden of calculation over to a computer which might let you have more realism along with your quick and exciting play. Or maybe they'll be designed with the narrative structure in mind more than merely conflict resolution, like Dread, and take the hobby back toward its parlor game-thespian roots. I don't know. If I did know what would be the next big thing, I'd be trying to make it.