Post originally by Rafael at 2003-11-04 16:11:21
Converted from Phorums BB System



Stront wrote:
-------------------------------
The article seems to be more about how new RPG systems should be innovative not derivative. Is that what you refer to when you say "current theories on RPG development".

Also, could you give some examples of "first and second generation role-playing games"? Well, okay, I can probably work out the 1st gen myself.
--------------------------------

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "current theories on RPG development."

Of course, just because a new role-playing game is derivative rather than innovative does not make the RPG a poor game. On the contrary, as Ron Edwards suggests in "Fantasy Heartbreakers," RPGs that are derived from older RPGS (and D&D in particular) can still be enjoyed as complete systems.

That, I think, is the issue with HinterWelt's Iridium System. It has some twist on conventional rules, but all-in-all it's a system that takes its cue from RPGs of the past. Despite the Iridium's System's derivative nature, the core rules are still playable.

As for RPG generations, I refer you to Greg Porter's taxonomy for role-playing games (http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/wherewevebeen.html). While Porter's taxonomy is old, it is also one of the first of its kind and the one I refer to most when I discuss game generations.

Note, the year in which a game is published has no baring to which generation it ascribes. Thus, Shades of Earth (though written decades after Palladium systems, Chivalry and Sorcery, and the original Runequest) shares the traits of a second generation game system.

--Rafael