Ron Edwards is the one who came up with the term, which he defined as what happens when someone tries to do better than TSR did with D&D. At least that's my reading of his essay. To this day there are those who insist that "Fantasy Heartbreaker" can only review to what Edwards was referring to, and refuse to allow for changes.
That's the thing about languages, they change. Usage changes, and so meaning changes. When you get right down to it, Ron's original usage of "Fantasy Heartbreaker" could just as resonably be applied to games other than Dungeons & Dragons.
That, for example, the RPG Fifth Cycle. Because Fifth Cycle uses many of the mechanics, many of the rules, and a few of the tropes of the RPG Dragonquest. You could say, with a fair amount of justification, that Fifth Cycle is a Dragonquest heartbreaker insofar as Fifth Cycle tries to be a better Dragonquest than Dragonquest
What is an RPG heartbreaker? In this case a heartbreaker can be said to be an RPG that tries to be better at what X does than X does. Very often with no idea of what X is trying to do, or even when a designer understands X, with no real understanding of how to better X. Much of the time the designer of the new game has no real vision for what he wants his game to be. Or if he has a vision, how to share that vision effectively with his readers and players.
Fifth Cycle has a vision, it's about a world where a new world has recently been discovered, and adventuring parties are being hired to go explore, discover, and bring home loot. It even has a mechanism whereby the adventurers can be licensed to go to the new world; giving them official status, backing, and a contact they can deal with. Unfortunately, it's kinda blah.
X heartbreakers are often derivative, imitative. Fifth Cycle imitates Dragonquest, but without the sense of "Hey, this is cool." Often this is a matter of perception, but sometimes it can be directly observed. (As an example take F.A.T.A.L., a DND heartbreaker. I tried to read F.A.T.A.L once and discovered that the writing was about as engaging as the U.S. tax code.)
You get right down to it, all too often a heartbreaker gives you do reason to play it.
Then you have the matter of organization. An RPG is really one place where you really want to organize your thoughts. At least decide on where things logically go. What slot does it fit under? Does it fit better in another slot? If you spend more time flipping pages than you do reading rules, then the author did it wrong. In short, outline.
That's what I've got for now. Responses?
'Heart breaker' is just an insult -- a way to call a game derivative, and uninteresting in a weirdly emotional way (I can't imagine having my heart broken by a game).
My recommendation is that if someone makes a game you don't think is particularly distinguished that you say that, and leave the hyperbole out.
In practice, derivative games are often successful in the marketplace and copying a successful property is likely a better bet than doing something new, so I'd advise game designers not to worry about breaking anyone's heart and just make the game they want to play, even if it's just a lot like D&D.
They should just be careful to call it "old school."
Cheers,
-E.
Whatever you call it, I find a difference in quality between this or that *-derivative game. In the second of the two original heartbreaker essays, Edwards decides that it's the game content more than the mechanics which should be emphasized. On the phrasing of this point, I find myself agreeing, even if he or his partisans would go on to label something a "heartbreaker" which I personally like.
Just recently I came across a game called Crossroads of Eternity. I think this (http://www.crossroads-rpg.com) is the web page for the game in its decrepitude. The rules are...whatever; they didn't seem too strongly derivative of D&D mechanics except in the most general sense.
But the implied game world is: humans, dwarves, elves, orcs...and centaurs and catmen and minotaurs...and nosferatu and vampyres. Then there are the "trades", pretty much the standard bunch of D&D classes, including clerics and rangers, plus another smattering of stuff the authors thought was cool.
This stew clearly needs to simmer longer.
The trick is to articulate why CoE didn't grab me in the store, while Palladium Fantasy, Shades of Fantasy, or Dragon Warriors, all of which are more clearly D&D-derived mechanically, do. I don't think it's just the art or the fact that PF and DW are older. It's something to do with vision and inspiration; you might be able to quantify the "cooked-ness" of these latter games by comparing the breadth of classes and races. I'd say, especially, if a game has a "cleric" class (not "priest", but "cleric" with the same overall concept as in D&D), that's a pretty big giveaway, but it's only one point of comparison.
In fact, one thing that might be overlooked is that regardless of what you think of the D&D mechanics, the detail and flavor of the implied game-world (not to mention some settings) have a lot going for them. Of course D&D has clerics and (usually) rangers, but it doesn't just have those things.
Quote from: -E.;607928'Heart breaker' is just an insult -- a way to call a game derivative, and uninteresting in a weirdly emotional way (I can't imagine having my heart broken by a game).
-E.
No, it isn't. There are some -- OK, *many* -- who misunderstood Ron's essay use the term as an insult. But where people screw up is in thinking that "heartbreaker" refers to the contents of the game. It doesn't. Ron just happened to be talking about D&D and its derivatives because (1) there's a whole lot of D&D around, and (2) Ron hates D&D. But he could have been talking about any other genre.
What makes a game a heartbreaker is the fact that someone worked really hard and spent a lot of money (back when Lulu wasn't an option) to publish their own game, which was then mostly ignored because it's just D&D with a spell-point system and armor that reduces damage. They could have *not* spent that money and just circulated a free set of modified D&D rules, or published just the spell-point system or armor system as a supplement "for any fantasy game", or did a complete, separate game like Tunnels & Trolls, The Fantasy Trip, or Runequest. Other people did these things, and some got recognition; the authors of fantasy heartbreakers wanted recognition, and all they got was debt. And heartbreak.
Waaah, waaah, someone called my favorite game a heartbreaker.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;607948This stew clearly needs to simmer longer.
THIS is how I view Ron's thoughts on Fantasy Heartbreakers. A true heart breaker is different than a crappy RPG. A heart breaker is a game that has a bunch of cool ideas, but falls into the trap of being "D&D+X" instead of developing its own identity. It's an "almost good" game.
Palladium Fantasy is the perfect example of dodging that trap. It is clearly (D&D + RQ)/2 from a mechanical sense, but Kevin Siembieda infused the races, classes and setting with his own sense of Wahoo! Wabango!!! that elevates PF beyond what could have been yet another Fantasy Heartbreaker of the early 80s.
AKA, Babylon 5 and Deep Space 9 are both scifi shows with fantasy fluff that take place on space stations with interstellar wars BUT each show has enough "bits" that allowed fans to gravitate to either (or both) as unique-enough IPs to be enjoyed.
Quote from: talysman;607949No, it isn't. There are some -- OK, *many* -- who misunderstood Ron's essay use the term as an insult. But where people screw up is in thinking that "heartbreaker" refers to the contents of the game. It doesn't. Ron just happened to be talking about D&D and its derivatives because (1) there's a whole lot of D&D around, and (2) Ron hates D&D. But he could have been talking about any other genre.
What makes a game a heartbreaker is the fact that someone worked really hard and spent a lot of money (back when Lulu wasn't an option) to publish their own game, which was then mostly ignored because it's just D&D with a spell-point system and armor that reduces damage. They could have *not* spent that money and just circulated a free set of modified D&D rules, or published just the spell-point system or armor system as a supplement "for any fantasy game", or did a complete, separate game like Tunnels & Trolls, The Fantasy Trip, or Runequest. Other people did these things, and some got recognition; the authors of fantasy heartbreakers wanted recognition, and all they got was debt. And heartbreak.
Yes, it's an insult.
Read the essay again: the game is a "heartbreaker" because it was -- and I quote "doomed from the start."
He's not saying that a game broke his heart because it failed in the marketplace (in which case virtually all RPGs ever published are 'heartbreakers') -- he's saying it's broke his heart because there's no market for derivative games and because derivative games
* Don't demonstrate an appreciation of all the 'advances' in RPGs (uh huh)
* Don't demonstrate an appreciation of something he calls "actual fantasy" (eh?)
* Don't have more original mechanics (so what?)
* Don't demonstrate business acumen (this from the guy who went to Germany to launch Spion, or whatever it was)
This is all laughable.
Firstly, many highly derivative games were *not* doomed from the start, and secondly many games that are original, full of "advances" and so-on fail.
I'm all for calling games derivative, but if someone tells you that the creative efforts of another person broke their heart because the guy didn't know as much about "actual fantasy" as the critic thinks he should, I recommend pointing and laughing.
Cheers,
-E.
Heartbreaker: An RPG derivative of an earlier work that is uninspired and/or incompetent. Usually produced by those who do not understand, or appreciate, the original game; do not understand, or appreciate, RPG design; do not understand, or appreciate, how to organize an RPG, or even how to format an outline; and either has no comprehension of the language he is writing in, or, indeed, any clue as to how to communicate.
Heartbreakers are often poorly written, poorly organized, include material that distract from learning and running the game, and very often mechanics that are excessively complicated and rules that explain those mechanics poorly.
There are heartbreakers for a number of RPGs, not just Dungeons & Dragons. With very few exceptions they fail on the market.
Quote from: -E.;607956I'm all for calling games derivative, but if someone tells you that the creative efforts of another person broke their heart because the guy didn't know as much about "actual fantasy" as the critic thinks he should, I recommend pointing and laughing.
Indeed; here, here. :)
Quote from: -E.;607956I'm all for calling games derivative, but if someone tells you that the creative efforts of another person broke their heart because the guy didn't know as much about "actual fantasy" as the critic thinks he should, I recommend pointing and laughing.
If she wants vampires that sparkle, then her vampires sparkle.
It's funny that Edwards was so dismissive of D&D variants, because some of the hippest indie RPGs these days - 13th Age, Dungeon World - are "fantasy heartbreakers". Not to mention games like the Fantasy Craft, the DCC RPG, and Hackmaster. They bring a lot to the table in terms of playing with and highlighting what makes D&D fun. I could do without the narrative mechanics, but there's a lot of useful ideas and love for the genre in these games.
Whether used whole cloth or plundered for a homebrew system, the variety of takes on D&D are a nice resource for DMs. And the funny thing is, most of these variants will still get bought more and played more than Sorceror, or whatever academic wank Edwards is trying to hawk these days.
Quote from: Haffrung;608126It's funny that Edwards was so dismissive of D&D variants, because some of the hippest indie RPGs these days - 13th Age, Dungeon World - are "fantasy heartbreakers". Not to mention games like the Fantasy Craft, the DCC RPG, and Hackmaster. They bring a lot to the table in terms of playing with and highlighting what makes D&D fun. I could do without the narrative mechanics, but there's a lot of useful ideas and love for the genre in these games.
None of those games are heartbreakers.
The key part of the heartbreaker thing is that a) the designer has some cool ideas and is trying to do something different but b) they are drowned in a sea of unconscious and unthinking D&D-isms due to ignorance of what else is out there (eg, thinking that going classless or having armour absorb damage is an innovation despite Runequest, WFRP, etc).
OSRIC-style games are not heartbreakers because they are consciously trying to improve and polish the basic D&D chassis. They
want to be 'D&D, but with X'.
13th Age and Dungeon World are not heartbreakers because they are consciously trying to use new sorts of system design to revisit the basic D&D tropes in a different way. They're new takes on an existing genre, not thoughtless retreads of the same old stuff.
Quote from: mythusmage;607958Heartbreaker: An RPG derivative of an earlier work that is uninspired and/or incompetent. Usually produced by those who do not understand, or appreciate, the original game; do not understand, or appreciate, RPG design; do not understand, or appreciate, how to organize an RPG, or even how to format an outline; and either has no comprehension of the language he is writing in, or, indeed, any clue as to how to communicate.
Heartbreakers are often poorly written, poorly organized, include material that distract from learning and running the game, and very often mechanics that are excessively complicated and rules that explain those mechanics poorly.
There are heartbreakers for a number of RPGs, not just Dungeons & Dragons. With very few exceptions they fail on the market.
Say, have you followed what's been going on with
Vampire: Undeath (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15765.phtml)?
Quote from: soviet;608148None of those games are heartbreakers.
The key part of the heartbreaker thing is that a) the designer has some cool ideas and is trying to do something different but b) they are drowned in a sea of unconscious and unthinking D&D-isms due to ignorance of what else is out there (eg, thinking that going classless or having armour absorb damage is an innovation despite Runequest, WFRP, etc).
OSRIC-style games are not heartbreakers because they are consciously trying to improve and polish the basic D&D chassis. They want to be 'D&D, but with X'.
13th Age and Dungeon World are not heartbreakers because they are consciously trying to use new sorts of system design to revisit the basic D&D tropes in a different way. They're new takes on an existing genre, not thoughtless retreads of the same old stuff.
Sorry, I don't see the distinction. They're all the author's personal take on the D&D genre. Unconscious or conscious is irrelevant. One man's homage is another man's retread.
Sounds like an entirely subjective judgement that only bad games that mimic D&D are heartbreakers.
Quote from: Haffrung;608206Sorry, I don't see the distinction. They're all the author's personal take on the D&D genre. Unconscious or conscious is irrelevant. One man's homage is another man's retread.
Sounds like an entirely subjective judgement that only bad games that mimic D&D are heartbreakers.
Exactly. You can see that it's just another way of saying "I didn't like this game" by all the contortions and excuses -- derivative games I like aren't heartbreakers, but ones I don't weren't deriving "consciously" (automatic writing?) and their derivation was "unthinking" (meaning approximately nothing)
It's another example of lingo to try to turn someone's opinion and idiosyncratic preference into some kind of objective value judgement.
Made all the more ridiculous because of the melodrama and the idea that "making a game I don't like" is some kind of objectively bad marketing decision (the analyst is "heartbroken" because of all the wasted effort! Oh, woe! Woe!).
As a criticism, it's not to be taken seriously.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: mythusmage;607999If she wants vampires that sparkle, then her vampires sparkle.
No.
She wants vampires that sparkle, but when someone writes vampire fiction with non-sparkly vampires, she locks herself in her room, throws herself lengthwise on her bed, and weeps -- Weeps -- at the waste! Oh! Woe! A book that didn't cater to my preferences!
Woe.
Her heart... she is...
broken.
-E.
Quote from: Haffrung;608206Sorry, I don't see the distinction. They're all the author's personal take on the D&D genre. Unconscious or conscious is irrelevant. One man's homage is another man's retread.
Sounds like an entirely subjective judgement that only bad games that mimic D&D are heartbreakers.
Nope.
Have you read the essays?
Quote from: soviet;608242Nope.
Have you read the essays?
I have.
They start with a list of absurd criteria (already listed above), but then when Edwards actually goes to assess games that broke his heart, he comes up with this:
QuoteConsider: each of these games is alike regarding the act of role-playing itself. The point of play is being an adventurer who grows very powerful and might die at any time, and all context and judgment and outcomes are the exclusive province of this guy called the GM (or whatever), case closed. They precisely parallel what AD&D role-playing evolved into during the early 1980s. Each of these games is clearly written by a GM who would very much like all the players simply to shut up and play their characters without interfering with "what's really happening." They are Social Contract time bombs.
Check it out!
He doesn't apply his framework. Instead, he pretty much throws it away and complains about what he always complains about: mean GMs who deprotagonize their players.
He is heartbroken because these designers neglected to incorporate his theories into their games.
In practice heartbreaker = "didn't care for."
I want to be clear: I fully support not-caring for games. I don't care for most games. But the idea that there's something called a "heartbreaker" that has any real meaning outside of someone's reaction doesn't hold up.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: soviet;608242Nope.
Have you read the essays?
Yeah, about five years ago. All the talk about intent is just bullshit. It's bullshit when academics use it for other mediums, and it was bullshit when the Forge adopted the jargon of academia to try to make RPG analysis Serious Stuff.
Some RPG designers liked the idea of D&D, but they had some issues with the implementation. So they created their own versions of a D&D-like RPG. Ron Edwards called them heartbreakers. But now that D&D-variants are cool, some people feel the need to draw academic distinctions.
Quote from: Haffrung;608251Some RPG designers liked the idea of D&D, but they had some issues with the implementation. So they created their own versions of a D&D-like RPG. Ron Edwards called them heartbreakers. But now that D&D-variants are cool, some people feel the need to draw academic distinctions.
No, that's bullshit.
There's a difference between innovation (RuneQuest), deliberate reinterpretation (OSRIC), and unconscious imitation (heartbreakers).
Quote from: -E.;608248He is heartbroken because these designers neglected to incorporate his theories into their games.
Yore jib. I like the cut of it.
In fairness though does anyone care about what mad old ron had to say anymore, or his disturbed offspring, the ever shrinking community of oh-so-happy shared narrative gamers?
Quote from: The Traveller;608260Yore jib. I like the cut of it.
In fairness though does anyone care about what mad old ron had to say anymore, or his disturbed offspring, the ever shrinking community of oh-so-happy shared narrative gamers?
No.
But rpg-dialog is still cut through with "your game sucks" "roll-playing v. role-playing" crap.
The stuff that came out of the forge was all good for insulting games they didn't like, and still gets used for that purpose.
It's better than it was: GNS/TBM is pretty much dead-on-arrival... but some remnants still hang on. Heartbreakers is one of them.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: soviet;608256No, that's bullshit.
There's a difference between innovation (RuneQuest), deliberate reinterpretation (OSRIC), and unconscious imitation (heartbreakers).
How in fuck does Ron Edwards, or anyone else, know if a designer is consciously imitating D&D or unconsciously imitating it?
Quote from: GrimGent;608187Say, have you followed what's been going on with Vampire: Undeath (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15765.phtml)?
I tried reading the review, but they do tend to go on and on and on and on. Being a hard core practitioner of stream of consciousness writing, I can say with all confidence the review in question needed a kick-ass copy editor to get it organized.
That said, when you boil it down to the gist of the matter, the message authors send is, "Vampire: Undeath sucks so bad it can get blood from a Venerian* stone."
I must disagree with them regarding defamation suits re online writing. First, the charge would be libel, not slander (slander is spoken defamation), and defamation of character suits are possible if the statement in question can be proven to be libelous in a court of law. The whole "You can't sue someone for what they said online" is an urban legend.
In any case, thanks for the link and the amusement. Nice to learn that there are heartbreakers other than those linked to D&D, and that columnists at the Purple Disappointment retain a talent for unconscious irony and a lack of insight an introspection.
*Venerian: From Venus, where the geology is excessively dry.
Quote from: -E.;608236No.
She wants vampires that sparkle, but when someone writes vampire fiction with non-sparkly vampires, she locks herself in her room, throws herself lengthwise on her bed, and weeps -- Weeps -- at the waste! Oh! Woe! A book that didn't cater to my preferences!
Woe.
Her heart... she is...
broken.
-E.
As a DM once said, referring to a character of mine, "If he wants to 2'8" dwarf, he can
have a 2'8" dwarf."
Quote from: soviet;608242Nope.
Have you read the essays?
The impression I get is that only did he read the essays, he comprehended the essays. A distinction I doubt you can credit the author of those essays with.
Quote from: mythusmage;608285As a DM once said, referring to a character of mine, "If he wants to 2'8" dwarf, he can have a 2'8" dwarf."
I think I'm missing the point, but I'm down with a 2'8" dwarf, so we're all good.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: -E.;608288I think I'm missing the point, but I'm down with a 2'8" dwarf, so we're all good.
Cheers,
-E.
The player he was responding to was convinced dwarfs had to be at least 4' tall. My 2'8" Hui Ohn (a Buddhist cleric when dwarfs could only be fighters or thieves) harshed his mellow.
BTW, Hui Ohn was a lapsed Buddhist (as if you needed conformation of my oddity :) ).
Quote from: The Traveller;608260In fairness though does anyone care about what mad old ron had to say anymore, or his disturbed offspring, the ever shrinking community of oh-so-happy shared narrative gamers?
What do you base that on? It seems to me--based on new games being published and podcasts and the like--that the number of narrative gamers is at least holding steady, possibly increasing. Do you have evidence that it is shrinking?
Quote from: mythusmage;608284I tried reading the review, but they do tend to go on and on and on and on. Being a hard core practitioner of stream of consciousness writing, I can say with all confidence the review in question needed a kick-ass copy editor to get it organized.
That said, when you boil it down to the gist of the matter, the message authors send is, "Vampire: Undeath sucks so bad it can get blood from a Venerian* stone."
I must disagree with them regarding defamation suits re online writing. First, the charge would be libel, not slander (slander is spoken defamation), and defamation of character suits are possible if the statement in question can be proven to be libelous in a court of law. The whole "You can't sue someone for what they said online" is an urban legend.
In any case, thanks for the link and the amusement. Nice to learn that there are heartbreakers other than those linked to D&D, and that columnists at the Purple Disappointment retain a talent for unconscious irony and a lack of insight an introspection.
*Venerian: From Venus, where the geology is excessively dry.
We were going to opt for a third or fourth set of eyes, but we decided to just go for the gusto even if it was a bit long-winded. I really, really wanted to make sure that I covered all the bases if only to stop the cries of, "You haven't read it, you can't judge it!"
Regarding the libel/slander thing, I didn't make the point strongly enough that when I said "You can't[...]" I was really saying, "This is not something that usually ends well." It's like saying, "You can't mix chocolate and peanut butter!" or "One does not just walk into Mordor." A good editor probably would have caught that and made me strengthen it up so as not to cause confusion.
Quote from: Wil;610734We were going to opt for a third or fourth set of eyes, but we decided to just go for the gusto even if it was a bit long-winded. I really, really wanted to make sure that I covered all the bases if only to stop the cries of, "You haven't read it, you can't judge it!"
Regarding the libel/slander thing, I didn't make the point strongly enough that when I said "You can't[...]" I was really saying, "This is not something that usually ends well." It's like saying, "You can't mix chocolate and peanut butter!" or "One does not just walk into Mordor." A good editor probably would have caught that and made me strengthen it up so as not to cause confusion.
It was good. It was funny. I liked it, and I laughed a lot. It was one of the best things on rpg.net in years.
I just hope that the community lets the joke die with dignity, and doesn't keep dredging it up well past it's funny-by date (Like, say, the FATAL review).
Quote from: Ladybird;610823It was good. It was funny. I liked it, and I laughed a lot. It was one of the best things on rpg.net in years.
I just hope that the community lets the joke die with dignity, and doesn't keep dredging it up well past it's funny-by date (Like, say, the FATAL review).
I was mentally and emotionally prepared to let the joke die at least last week, but the guy just keeps giving and giving. That prompted me to do this: http://darquefyrebyrdpublishyng.blogspot.com/ I'm running out of steam on that one too though.
Quote from: Ladybird;610823I just hope that the community lets the joke die with dignity, and doesn't keep dredging it up well past it's funny-by date
The Purple Menace and dignity. My brain is getting to old for that sort of disconnect.
Quote from: mythusmage;606331That's what I've got for now. Responses?
you probably should reread the essay because you seemed to have missed most of the definition. Its not just games that "try to do D&D better". Its games made by people who are completely unaware of any RPGs besides D&D that tout their game as "superior, modern, and wholly original". See The Imagine Player's Guide for one of the best ever examples.
If it makes money , its not a heartbreaker. If it has a completely new and revolutionary system (such as Dragonlance Saga), its not a heartbreaker. If its a retro-clone or OSR hack, its not a heartbreaker.
The "heartbreak" element comes from two places: there is some small piece of brilliance or worthwhile rule buried in the dated and the earnestness or enthusiasm of the author who is obviously completely ignorant of the industry as a whole.
While I agree that there is room to apply the title to other games (see Vampire: The Underneath for an unabashed oWoD heartbreaker...almost), I don't think whitwashing the term to mean "any different take on D&d" is useful. In fact, since the Old School Renaissance began, I think perhaps the term is no longer a valid one for most games. Things have changed since the late 90s/early aughts. whats old is new again.
Quote from: TristramEvans;612740whats old is new again.
No, no it really isn't.
Quote from: The Traveller;612742No, no it really isn't.
Yes, of course it is. Try picturing Dungeon Crawl Classics trying to get on the shelves of a retailer in the late 90s.
Quote from: TristramEvans;612743Yes, of course it is. Try picturing Dungeon Crawl Classics trying to get on the shelves of a retailer in the late 90s.
Doesn't make it new again. In the same way, there are huge arguments about magic users versus fighters hereabouts, and they weren't new thirty years ago. D&D rocks but jesus.
I really like that essay. I think it's the only one of Ron Edwards' screeds that makes any sort of sense. It's also the only one he wrote in which he comes across as a human being.
It's true that times have changed, but for the time and context in which it was written, it is a nice piece.
Quote from: The Traveller;612744Doesn't make it new again. In the same way, there are huge arguments about magic users versus fighters hereabouts, and they weren't new thirty years ago. D&D rocks but jesus.
Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with that expression? Because thats exactly what it means.
Quote from: TristramEvans;612748Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with that expression? Because thats exactly what it means.
Okay to put it another way, its not new to
me again. I sincerely doubt its new to any of the participants either. I dunno, I think I'm suffering from a profound ennui with the whole affair.
Quote from: The Traveller;612750Okay to put it another way, its not new to me again. I sincerely doubt its new to any of the participants either. I dunno, I think I'm suffering from a profound ennui with the whole affair.
Well, it wouldn't be new to anyone whose played RPGs for longer than 30 years, sure. But those sorts of players (myself included) aren't the ones running out and buying new games for the most part.
So let's put it this way; is the game interesting? Can it be made interesting? Does it invite GM and player to get involved, eager to get involve? Do the mechanics make sense, are they well explained? Is the whole coherent? Does it encourage innovation while avoiding standardized, set piece play? Does the game, and its adventures, encourage the GM to make the game, the adventure their own, or do they foster rote, set piece, "read off the text" play?
My DJ SRD (http://dangerous-journeys.mythusmage.org) ever gets done (been taking awhile) I will encourage those who play DJ games to make the game their own, and not worry about whether it blends in perfectly with every session using those rules. So you don't run it like some uber JM (GM), as long as the players have fun.
Quote from: TristramEvans;612751Well, it wouldn't be new to anyone whose played RPGs for longer than 30 years, sure. But those sorts of players (myself included) aren't the ones running out and buying new games for the most part.
How do you know? Sales are after all in an extended decline.
Anyway that's not the point. None of this is a productive use of time, these endless tail chasing exercises lacking any hint of an original spark, gnawing over fat long turned to dust. The life and breath of the hobby is imagination, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out how much of that exists online. Honourable mentions excluded of course.
Don't mind me, its been a long week.
Quote from: mythusmage;606331That's what I've got for now. Responses?
Just reading this - http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/
All this tells me is that Ron is creating a term to identify derivative, and mostly amateur products. A popular, apparently original product that is easily cloned, will be cloned, though not always better than the original. That is not unique to RPGs.
I get the literary /archaelogical spin, and that the fantasy heartbreakers are like gaming pastiche - hence the article is an "essay" and not a "whitepaper".
"Fantasy Heartbreaker" seems like an awfully puffed up term, like "Web 2.0".
Quote from: Lynn;612807Just reading this - http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/
All this tells me is that Ron is creating a term to identify derivative, and mostly amateur products. A popular, apparently original product that is easily cloned, will be cloned, though not always better than the original. That is not unique to RPGs.
I get the literary /archaelogical spin, and that the fantasy heartbreakers are like gaming pastiche - hence the article is an "essay" and not a "whitepaper".
"Fantasy Heartbreaker" seems like an awfully puffed up term, like "Web 2.0".
It's subtler than that. The reason they're called "Heartbreakers" is quite specific - they're heartbreaking because of the love and effort put into them (which is for naught) and because they often have a kernel of a good idea in there which indicates what might have been if the author had been more aware.
He isn't talking about any old amateur product. He is talking specifically about ones created without awareness of the RPG world outside of D&D.
It is just an essay, sure. But there's nothing wrong with writing (and reading) essays that put a new spin on things. I also think the core principle at work is important: if you want to be a good game designer, play
lots of games of all different types, so that you know what is out there and what isn't, and you gain a clearer idea of what needs to be done.
Open my big mouth:
What I take away from the essay is not what the author intended. But it is valuable:
When designing a game or setting, strive to be conscious of your influences. Likely you have inherited a set of assumptions from prior experiences; don't let your assumptions rule everything.
Look beyond your usual taste boundaries. If you want to write Epic Fantasy, familiarize yourself with Leonard Elmore and Tom Clancy, not just Tolkien.
If you want to write an RPG, don't start from one system (D&D, Storyteller, whatever). Read and play many different systems, and see which ones have elements you like.
Everything is a remix. (http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remix-part-1/) Truly great art is a remix, as well. Shakespeare used other people's stories, pretty much exclusively. Borrowing has a noble tradition.
Just be aware of what you're borrowing, and do so for a reason. Don't take elements from one game "just because".
Examine your assumptions, and especially examine all the mechanics in your game. Justify each on its own merits, not because it existed in a predecessor system. Your work will be much improved thereby.
Not what the author intended, but that's what I take away. And, in the form I've presented it, it's pretty good advice.
Quote from: noisms;612826It's subtler than that. The reason they're called "Heartbreakers" is quite specific - they're heartbreaking because of the love and effort put into them (which is for naught) and because they often have a kernel of a good idea in there which indicates what might have been if the author had been more aware.
He isn't talking about any old amateur product. He is talking specifically about ones created without awareness of the RPG world outside of D&D.
Yes, that's clear.
Quote from: noisms;612826It is just an essay, sure. But there's nothing wrong with writing (and reading) essays that put a new spin on things. I also think the core principle at work is important: if you want to be a good game designer, play lots of games of all different types, so that you know what is out there and what isn't, and you gain a clearer idea of what needs to be done.
I wouldn't argue to the contrary to knowing your market / audience being important.
In the case of these products, if they derived most of their content from tropes found in D&D, then maybe that's the point. The authors probably liked D&D and wanted to make a better D&D - his "patch" analogy seems about right.
Edwards feels its heartbreaking that there are a couple of good nuggets in a tasteless, regurgitated stew of D&D. I get that. But many different types of amateur works are derivative and satisfying to the author, and are marketing failures because they weren't crafted to sell.
Quote from: Lynn;612896Yes, that's clear.
I wouldn't argue to the contrary to knowing your market / audience being important.
In the case of these products, if they derived most of their content from tropes found in D&D, then maybe that's the point. The authors probably liked D&D and wanted to make a better D&D - his "patch" analogy seems about right.
Edwards feels its heartbreaking that there are a couple of good nuggets in a tasteless, regurgitated stew of D&D. I get that. But many different types of amateur works are derivative and satisfying to the author, and are marketing failures because they weren't crafted to sell.
I don't think he's saying that there is no value in those games because they are derivative and only satisfying to the author - actually he encourages people to play them.
And I think it's a more fundamental point than just knowing your audience/market. It's about being a good game designer; the more games you play, and the broader your experience, the better your games are likely to be. This is true in pretty much any creative field (actually any area of human endeavour, really).
The heartbreak comes when you realise these people are mortgaging their houses to put out a lavish hardback of a product they believe in to a degree that dwarfs the interest of their market.
Quote from: noisms;613142And I think it's a more fundamental point than just knowing your audience/market. It's about being a good game designer; the more games you play, and the broader your experience, the better your games are likely to be. This is true in pretty much any creative field (actually any area of human endeavour, really).
I don't disagree, just that this essay doesn't go very far to prove that point.
Sure, he can point out that these games are extensively drawn from D&D underpinnings by virtue of their mechanics, have byzantine systems yet still have a few redeeming qualities. Not too much more than that though. There is no indication, for example, that he did any research into the development of these games to show that what the designers had in mind. Did they lack the key background that he suggests? Could be, but I don't believe that is demonstrated here. Did they want to make their own patched version of D&D? Could be - that is what is suggested because that is what they delivered. But even then the essay doesn't confirm actual intent or knowledge.
I agree that the broader your experience, the more personal assets you
may draw on in your creative work. It is something Ive come to appreciate later in life about the liberal arts degree I have. More specific - having that experience doesn't necessarily translate to
being able to deliver what your target audience wants. It isn't just knowing, it is knowing how to deliver that makes a designer of anything.
Amateurs at anything make things for their own pleasure or for the pleasure of a small group. A professional designer is designing with specific goals in mind for a client, customer or audience.
Quote from: Lynn;613237I don't disagree, just that this essay doesn't go very far to prove that point.
Sure, he can point out that these games are extensively drawn from D&D underpinnings by virtue of their mechanics, have byzantine systems yet still have a few redeeming qualities. Not too much more than that though. There is no indication, for example, that he did any research into the development of these games to show that what the designers had in mind. Did they lack the key background that he suggests? Could be, but I don't believe that is demonstrated here. Did they want to make their own patched version of D&D? Could be - that is what is suggested because that is what they delivered. But even then the essay doesn't confirm actual intent or knowledge.
I agree that the broader your experience, the more personal assets you may draw on in your creative work. It is something Ive come to appreciate later in life about the liberal arts degree I have. More specific - having that experience doesn't necessarily translate to being able to deliver what your target audience wants. It isn't just knowing, it is knowing how to deliver that makes a designer of anything.
Amateurs at anything make things for their own pleasure or for the pleasure of a small group. A professional designer is designing with specific goals in mind for a client, customer or audience.
I think maybe we're approaching it from different angles. To me, it's an essay, not an attempt to prove anything. Like any essay, it is more a set of thoughtful and interesting musings than a piece of scientific research or a piece of advice on how to run an RPG business.
And on that level it works well - it encourages the reader to think again about games they may dismiss as being just regurgitations of D&D, while making the broader point that wide-ranging experience is good.
Quote from: noisms;613245I think maybe we're approaching it from different angles. To me, it's an essay, not an attempt to prove anything. Like any essay, it is more a set of thoughtful and interesting musings than a piece of scientific research or a piece of advice on how to run an RPG business.
Well, the only people who will bother reading it are those who understand the context. Just recall those days of college yore, if you turned in an essay of thoughtful and interesting musings. To me, its a conversation at a coffee shop Id be fine with, or a blog entry, but something Id think about more before dedicating it to paper and calling it an essay ;)