Fantasy Heartbreakers

I've seen this term thrown around a bit -- coined (of course) by Ron "The Forge" Edwards, author of the fantasy RPGS: Sorcerer, and Trollbabe.  

This article attempts to define a Fantasy Heartbreaker a little more clearly.

QuoteFirst, what is a Heartbreaker not?
- It's not an illegitimate design
- It's not a game unworthy of publication
- It's not a sign of stupidity
- It's not a sign of uncreative designing

A natural follow-up question would then be, "Well, what are Fantasy Heartbreakers?"
- They try to fix another game
- They are sometimes a gold mine for game ideas
- They are one Entry Point to game design
- They often try to capture a "feeling" of some kind
- They tend to follow the pattern of a Traditional Game
- They are often really fun to play
- They are rarely long lived

Reading these articles really suggests if you're designing a Fantasy Genre "Traditional" RPG... you're basically a fool.

What I'm wondering is, in your opinion:

-- Had you heard of this term before seeing it here / in the context of something related to the Forge?

-- Do you buy it?  Is the Fantasy RPG the path to failure?

-- Is this just another Forge term that's basically discouraging indie RPGs design in the traditional / fantasy genres?  Is the only way to avoid this fate a non-traditional / pudding-eating-cowboys genre game with GNS powered DM-less narrativist gameplay?

Since Ron's 2nd article on the subject concludes with:  "And I haven't even begun my discussion of their science fiction equivalents based mainly on Star Frontiers and Traveller."  I can't shake the feeling any RPG that doesn't get the Forge-Brand seal of approval is a [insert genre] heartbreaker...

Disclaimer: Yes, I've been working on a Fantasy RPG.

Quote from: Stuart-- Had you heard of this term before seeing it here / in the context of something related to the Forge?

I read the original heartbreaker essays when they were first published on the Forge.  They had a dramatically positive impact on how I view those kinds of games.  In fact, I'd rate those essays as one of the two best things Edwards has ever done, right up there with Sorcerer & Sword.

Quote-- Do you buy it? Is the Fantasy RPG the path to failure?

Writing another take on the bog standard fantasy RPG is probably not going to be the key to commercial success, especially if your only window on how RPGs work is some version of D&D.  To that extent, I agree with Edwards.  Does that mean no one should be writing new fantasy RPGs?  Hell, no!  Just don't expect to be the next D&D, and you're solid.

Quote-- Is this just another Forge term that's basically discouraging indie RPGs design in the traditional / fantasy genres?

Does the term 'heartbreaker' and the general misunderstanding of the term discourage design in the traditional fantasy vein?  Maybe.  Is the heartbreaker concept intended to do so?  I don't think so.  If you really want to dig deeper on this, there are some Forge threads were some people argue that "everyone should write a heartbreaker".

QuoteIs the only way to avoid this fate a non-traditional / pudding-eating-cowboys genre game with GNS powered DM-less narrativist gameplay?

No.  But don't kid yourself that any other game featuring orcs, dwarves, classes, and levels has a shot at unseating D&D as the Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Is this a bit of a twisted view, though? [EDIT: not twisted in terms of crazy, but just...strange logic to me]

It's complicated to explain. You seem to be saying that as long as you don't think you're going to beat D&D, you might be a heartbreaker, but you're OK. Is this not exactly what, essentially, the Forge approach is?  I mean, nobody there, as far as I can tell, is convinced that their specific style of game is going to unseat D&D. So if you're OK writing a game that won't be commercially successful, that it, it doesn't define you as heartbreaker, what exactly does?

This goes back to the original question. Is it a heartbreaker if it's a [insert genre here] game,  but doesn't do that genre Forge style?

Skatch, whatchoo talkin' bout? By this logic it should be damned near impossible to write a mecha heartbreaker.

Honestly, I think he's mostly right. If you strip-out the condescending tone and rampant value judgements, that is.

If you're publishing what amounts to your D&D houserules, you probably won't be a big commercial success.

Of course, if that was never your goal in the first place, than it's no harm, no foul.

Dammit there's not 'T'

Yeah...it's hard to explain.  It's the question I was trying to ask, just not very well. I don't want to put words in others' mouths, so I'm not stating the following as fact.  This is just my interpretation.

Essentially, jrients is saying that you can write all the Fantasy you want, and as long as you're not looking to dethrone D&D, you're fine.  Sure, The Forge folks might deem you a heartbreaker, but it's no thing.

Well, if Forge-stlye games are held to the same standard then it's OK they don't outsell D&D.  But if outselling D&D is considered part of heartbreaker status, then why aren't all Forge style games heartbreakers?  There must be something else - what is it? And I think that's what the OP was getting at -what is that thing?

So in your case (at least the one you mention), any mecha game that isn't going to outsell D&D (or the mecha standard), isn't necessarily a heartbreaker for that reason. What is it that would, or would not, make it a heartbreaker mecha game?

Quote from: James J SkachSo in your case (at least the one you mention), any mecha game that isn't going to outsell D&D (or the mecha standard), isn't necessarily a heartbreaker for that reason. What is it that would, or would not, make it a heartbreaker mecha game?

Well, I brought up mecha for the dearth of mecha games. I mean, if you want to do fantasy, you're competing against a giant. If you want to do zombies, you're competing against a horde.

If you want to do mecha, from the get-go you've got this advantage: There isn't a standard, and there aren't alot of games in that genre. Granted, some BESM, some D20 Future, and Rifts (from what I've heard), but to the best of my knowledge those are just games that happen to have mecha (as opposed to mecha games).

I dunno, I guess that's just what I'm reading out of it.

Oh, and a "mecha heartbreaker" if there were such a thing would just be another iteration of an existing mecha game. For example, rewriting D20 future's mecha generation and adding a mechanic for property damage. I think. There's probably a better example.

From what I recall of the posts on the topic over at RPGnet a fantasy heartbreaker is a fantasy RPG designed and published because the designer is "dissatisfied" with D&D and wants to produce something that will show all those D&D jerks what for. It's an RPG designed for a negative reason and not anything positive.

But, because it's done in reaction to another RPG, it often has no reason to exist. There's nothing positive backing it up. Or, if there is, it's well hidden behind the vitriol and thus hard to find.

A heartbreaker basically says, "Play me because I'm better than that other game." As opposed to  a non-heartbreaker, which says, "Play me because I'm a good game to play." A heartbreaker goes out of its way to compare itself with, and denigrate, certain other RPGs, and that detracts from any enjoyment one might gain from it. A heartbreaker spends too much time tearing down its perceived rival, and no real time promoting itself.

In that case, I'm way off.

Ron Edwards' original articles are found here:

Fantasy Heartbreakers

QuoteImagine a role-player who learned of "fantasy" through Dungeons and Dragons. I can be a half-orc, he says. So what's an orc? Think of him having fun breaking doors, confronting the beholder, or running his fingers over the minotaur illustration in the Monster Manual. And sooner or later, he says, I'm tired of these rules or arguing about this or that. Let's do it this way. And sooner or later after that, he and his friends say, this way is way better. Wow, we wrote a game! Maybe we can publish it too, like Gary did.

In the late 70s, this wasn't unreasonable. By the early 90s, though, things were considerably different. This essay is about some 1990s games I'm calling "fantasy heartbreakers," which are truly impressive in terms of the drive, commitment, and personal joy that's evident in both their existence and in their details - yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating, in that, like their counterparts from the late 70s, they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start. This essay is basically in their favor, in a kind of grief-stricken way.

More Fantasy Heartbreakers

QuoteA Fantasy Heartbreaker's basic, imaginative content is "fantasy" using gaming, specifically D&D, as the inspirational text. What's D&D Fantasy? Well, it's about seting up a character starting-point with a strong random component as well as a strong strategy component, having encounters, surviving them (or not), and improving. What characters do is travel, team up, bicker a bit, walk a tightrope between cooperating and exploiting one another, suss out threats (risk assessment is a big deal), and fight with unavoidable or especially rewarding ones. Some giveaway details: gotta have elves and dwarves, gotta have underground complexes, gotta have teams of adventurers, gotta have array of tactical possibilites for combat (armor/weapons), gotta have similar array of spells, gotta ramp up the range and scope of both arrays with "experience," and gotta have a chock-full smorgasbord of threats.

(I want to emphasize that terms like "Tolkien fantasy," "traditional fantasy," and "high fantasy" are often used to refer to D&D fantasy, all of which I think are highly inaccurate and obfuscating.)

Its publishing context is a bit more tricky. The way I see it, anyway, is that a Fantasy Heartbreaker deliberately recapitulates the origin of D&D as a game: a few guys, a good idea, a labor of love, and book on the shelves, with the hope that gamers will like it. "Gary did it, and so can we." In that sense, we're talking about indie-indie-indie, in Forge terms. One element of this context is that most of these publishers are pretty naive about the three-tier distribution system, which (on the positive side) means they are more interested in establishing the game as part of ongoing hobby culture rather than simply making a quick buck through hyping to distributors. The other interesting ramification is that D20 material cannot, by definition, be a Fantasy Heartbreaker - D20 per se and D&D3E in particular aren't recapitulating the original TSR publishing model at all.

Also, a historical factor is at work. Considering early innovations as such when they *were* innovations, Arms Law, Spell Law, and Claw Law were not Heartbreaker material, and neither was Melee/Wizard, or early Tunnels & Trolls. However, today, a game published as an "original fantasy role-playing game" which resembled one of these would probably be one. Part of the definition includes ignorance of the existing diversity of game design.

Rules are also an issue, but it's grayer than one might think. Some people have been confused about "house rules from D&D play" as a defining feature. As a general observation, yes, a Fantasy Heartbreaker very often has D&D-imitative or assumption-based rules, but the degree of "house rule" can be very extreme, and some Heartbreakers do have home-grown, ground-up systems. Therefore the game's rules don't necessarily have to be derived directly from D&D. However, when they're not, they mainly recapitulate immediately-post-D&D developments as self-perceived innovations. Quite a few resemble early RuneQuest, early Rolemaster or MERPS, and one or another feature of AD&D2, most likely through parallelism and probably more rarely through imitation.

Quotedon't kid yourself that any other game featuring orcs, dwarves, classes, and levels has a shot at unseating D&D as the Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Fair enough.  Although it didn't prevent games like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, or boardgames like  Descent and Runebound.  Basically -- don't bet the farm on it -- and you'd be foolish to try it anyway unless you had the $ of a WOTC / White Wolf / Fantasy Flight Games to back it up.  But there's nothing to say you can't be in the same marketplace as D&D.  It's not an all or nothing scenario.

QuoteBut, because it's done in reaction to another RPG, it often has no reason to exist. There's nothing positive backing it up. Or, if there is, it's well hidden behind the vitriol and thus hard to find.

I can't even imagine making a game from that point of view.  You can't build something FUN out of so much Negativity.

QuotePart of the definition includes ignorance of the existing diversity of game design...

I wonder what diversity of game design he could possibly mean... I wonder if there is a forum and many essays that would enlighten the curious... :rolleyes:

Frankly, I don't even care if I'm wrong and Edwards was sneaking pro-Forge propaganda under my radar.  He identifies some old games no one plays and explains why these games have some virtues and deserve to be investigated and played.  For that reason alone, I will always like the Heartbreaker essays.  They may contain sneering at the naivite' needed to crank out a heartbreaker, but there's also honest respect and love for the games in there.

Ron Edwards taught me to stop worrying and love bombed RPGs.

Edwards was mocking these games, praising some of their mechanics, and arguing pro-forge theory all at once.

You see, a Heartbreaker is a game that is done by (usually very ignorant) would-be Gygaxs, who are certain that their game is the most radical new innovation in gaming ever, that they will sweep the world with their hot new game. The problem is that the heartbreaker follows a certain formula: its almost always basically identical in structure to D&D, with one or two exceptions.
These "exceptions" are often very interesting clever mechanics that are really very good; but the rest of the game is so utterly generic that the game is doomed to be forgotten and the designer's "sports-cars, cocaine and whores" fantasies will be shattered. Hence Fantasy Heartbreaker.

Edwards' essay does a good job of explaining the Heartbreaker and what it is, and why there are so many of the damn games that again and again continue to show up, and continue to bomb.
Where he goes off into Forge-cultism is that his underlying argument, the one he's saying without saying, is that the error of the Heartbreaker-writers was that they tried to be too much like D&D; and didn't take their one neat mechanic and blow that up into an entire micro-game in the Forge style.

That, of course, is where I get off his bus.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditEdwards was mocking these games, praising some of their mechanics, and arguing pro-forge theory all at once.

*snip* punditization

That, of course, is where I get off his bus.

RPGPundit

Well said.  

I hadn't encountered the term 'til perusing the Forge, but it's actually one of the few essays i could get through, and it made sense...and hey, it sounds better than "Another Fucking Fantasy Game", which i had taken to calling them.

Quote from: RPGPunditEdwards' essay does a good job of explaining the Heartbreaker and what it is, and why there are so many of the damn games that again and again continue to show up, and continue to bomb.
Where he goes off into Forge-cultism is that his underlying argument, the one he's saying without saying, is that the error of the Heartbreaker-writers was that they tried to be too much like D&D; and didn't take their one neat mechanic and blow that up into an entire micro-game in the Forge style.

That, of course, is where I get off his bus.

RPGPundit

Just a note: the essay is copyrighted 2002. My Life with Master had yet to be released, let alone Primetime Adventures or even Dogs in the Vineyard. HeroQuest (is that a 'micro-game'?) was still Hero Wars.

[I'm saying something without saying it. Can you dig it?]