The generations of pnp RPGs

[InaVegt]

There is this classification system for RPGs I've read about a while ago, and can't remember the source, but remember the gist of the article.

Basically, RPGs started at the first generation, systems of this generation have the following characteristics: Hugely detailed inventory lists (of both the specific characters and in the sourcebooks), detailed miniature combat.

Second generation left miniature combat behind, and started to focus on what makes the characters come to life. Characters are expected to have what makes sense for the character. Most modern systems fall in this generation.

Recently, the third generation has been born, combat is treated like just any other dramatic event, with only slight modifications at most. The focus of the game is role playing, with as little rules as possible.

So, just to show you the stuff, I'll categorize a few systems here.

D&D (all incarnations): 1st
d20m: 1st
GURPS: Either 1st or 2nd, depending on the exact rules used and the strictness of the GM.
WHFRP: 1st
WoD: 2nd
Exalted: 2nd
M&M: 2nd
Wushu: 3rd
The Window: 3rd

[nagora]

There is this classification system for RPGs I've read about a while ago, and can't remember the source, but remember the gist of the article.

Basically, RPGs started at the first generation, systems of this generation have the following characteristics: Hugely detailed inventory lists (of both the specific characters and in the sourcebooks), detailed miniature combat.
D&D was the first and didn't have a detailed miniature combat system for years, and the system eventually published was not widely used.


Second generation left miniature combat behind, and started to focus on what makes the characters come to life. Characters are expected to have what makes sense for the character. Most modern systems fall in this generation.
1ed AD&D had everything needed to make the character come to life, specifically: it gave them clearly defined archetypes as a foundation and then got out of the players' way. It didn't load them down with detailed minatures combat rules, crappy skills systems or a Byzantine character generation system which is actually just a heavily disguised numerical puzzle.


Recently, the third generation has been born, combat is treated like just any other dramatic event, with only slight modifications at most. The focus of the game is role playing, with as little rules as possible.
Combat isn't "just like any other dramatic event", it is fundamentally different in that the players can not do it themselves. Likewise, spell casting. Anything the players can do should be left to the players to do, with perhaps some advice on how to approach it.

[erikun]

Combat isn't "just like any other dramatic event", it is fundamentally different in that the players can not do it themselves. Likewise, spell casting. Anything the players can do should be left to the players to do, with perhaps some advice on how to approach it.
Just out of curiousity: how is combat any different than hacking into a mainframe laced with AI firewalls, or verbally sparring with an opposing NPC to convince the general of where troops are most needed? I just find it odd that the only time the players "cannot do it themselves" would be when they're holding a sword.

[Tyrrell]

Handling combat with the same system as everything else is not a particularly new idea. People have been trying it for decades.

I think that the categories are overly broad and do not represent major thoughts in RPG's.

I think that for splitting up generations the only system I like is this.

First: An RPG that doesn't realize that it's not a miniatures gaming system. Examples the earliest editions of D&D and nothing else.

Second: An RPG that is trying to be an RPG. Examples: everything typically thought of as an RPG from TWERPS and the Window to Rolemaster Standard System and Hero with all of the optional Rules.

Third: RPGs that aren't reallly RPG's any more. Examples: Rune, Barron VonMunchausen, Pantheon, Once Upon a Time.

The categorization in the initial post seems laden with implied yet unspoken value judgments about the three generations.

To speak about games you'd really want to speak about the components that make up a game. For example:

positional combat system
mook rules
stunt rules
free form magic system
social combat systems
troupe style play
fate system
die pool system
point based character construction

When you get to this level you can actually speak of development in games in a manner that might reflect the actual construction of games. For instance you can look at the ultra simple rules of Ghostbusters and Toon and reasonably see a continuation with ultra light games of today or argue that Today's simple games are different. You can trace mook rules from TORG to Feng Shui to Exalted to D&D4. You can look at Fate in James bond and see it lead to Confidence in Ars Magica which in turn leads to Willpower in White Wolf's storyteller system while at the same time looking at whimsy cards in early Ars Magica inspiring the card system in TORG then debate which of these threads was the greatest influence on Deadlands and through Deadlands Savage Worlds.