Seems theres alot of different uses for the term now. Seen people use it to refer to a game that supersedes some older game, supposedly betters it, yadda yadda.

And others using it to mean a game that TRIED to supersede an older game, and failed.

Looks like here you are using the second example.

Sounds like the answer is no. You did not set out to make a better version of anything. Just your own game and ideas.

Quote from: Ladybird;711531What are you looking for? Confirmation that your game would fall under "fantasy heartbreakers"? That it wouldn't? Demonstrating your "features list" outside of the ads forum?

If you're smart enough to understand the "fantasy heartbreaker" concept, you've got enough game design expertise to understand and explain why you made your decisions.

But you certainly fulfil this criteria;

It's always good to get outside perspective.  And if this site has anything, it has a myriad of outside perspectives.

Sure, there's always the sideline benefit of exposure, but it wasn't the focus or primary intent.  

There's been some really good feedback - from stark cynicism and name-calling to helpful commentary and discussion.  

Omega, you're right.  We didn't try to improve on something else. Our intent was to rethink the fantasy genre and the typical tropes and see what kind of world came out of it.

Ah the writings of ron, a glimpse into the mind of a man who was his own heartbreaker.

Seriously, you don't need to read the usual collection of subjective opinions presented as facts mixed with personal vendettas and random mental spasms to know that the world doesn't need yet another D&D clone.

Quote from: The Traveller;711585Seriously, you don't need to read the usual collection of subjective opinions presented as facts mixed with personal vendettas and random mental spasms to know that the world doesn't need yet another D&D clone.

Are you saying this specifically about ElfWood?  Or in general about the dissertation on fantasy heartbreakers by Ron?

Quote from: Ben Rogers;711915Are you saying this specifically about ElfWood?  Or in general about the dissertation on fantasy heartbreakers by Ron?

Depends.

Are you thinking your product is "My take on D&D that some folks might like" or "The thing that will SAVE GAMING BECAUSE IT IS SO UTTERLY AWESOME!!!1!ONE!"

The term is meaningless since the OSR. To understand it, you had to be there.

I don't think it's meaningless since the OSR, but I would certainly agree that the OSR is something completely different. Consciously tinkering with something you love is very different from unconsciously imitating it while seeking to innovate.

Quote from: Ben Rogers;711469I'd really like your thoughts on this - is this a "fantasy heartbreaker"?

If I say yes, your game looks like a fantasy heartbreaker, will you change anything about your game?

Quote from: Old Geezer;711527As I remember from the essay, and my memory ain't what it used to be...

what makes it a "heartbreaker" is the creator's belief that "My houseruled D&D" is going to be The Next Best Thing That Takes The World By Storm.

In other words, if I publish my fantasy setting and say, "Hey, here's a fun fantasy setting I use for OD&D with the serial numbers filed off, have fun" that's not a heartbreaker.

If I say "The greatest, most awesome fantasy setting EVER since Blackmoor and Greyhawk that will become The Setting To Play," that's a heartbreaker.

Yep, pretty much this. What broke the heart of Ron Edwards, in the cases he cites, is that the creators spent money trying to make The Next Big Thing, but really it's just D&D + skills, or D&D + armor reduces damage, or D&D + spell points.

The OSR is not the same thing, but it illustrates what the problem with Fantasy Heartbreakers is: those people could have released "my skill system, usable with any fantasy role-playing game (wink wink)" or "my replacement armor/combat system, yadda yadda". Some people were actually doing that, at the same time as the Heartbreakers came out, without the benefit of the OGL: they just made simple booklets with cheap illustrations, with supplementary rules for "any (wink wink) fantasy role-playing game" and didn't go to any great expense. The OGL, the Internet, ebook formats, and print on demand make all that even easier. Other people just wrote their ideas up as "optional systems" in an article for The Dragon.

The Heartbreaker creators, in contrast, wasted a lot of expense, at a time when they probably had to have a print run of at least a thousand copies, in order to make something hardly anyone bought, because it was obvious to everyone except the creators that it was just D&D. And everyone already *had* D&D, so why buy it again?

Quote from: talysman;712173The Heartbreaker creators, in contrast, wasted a lot of expense, at a time when they probably had to have a print run of at least a thousand copies, in order to make something hardly anyone bought, because it was obvious to everyone except the creators that it was just D&D. And everyone already *had* D&D, so why buy it again?

Did they? I know the place was and is drowning in clones, but was anyone actually spending money on trying to turn them into professional products, and if so, who?

I met the designers of Legendary Lives when their first edition came out -- three years before the bigger, fancier one mentioned in that essay. It got a good review in White Wolf magazine; it sold out and got a new edition; it paved the way for the hipper Lost Souls. A good time was had by all, and I'm sure Joe and Kathy made some money as well.

If that's a heartbreaker, I guess Edwards must be all broken up over Sorcerer!

No, wait: of course he's not. Sorcerer is a pretentious piece of "art." That's what matters, not that people have fun playing a game!

Quote from: The Traveller;712271Did they? I know the place was and is drowning in clones, but was anyone actually spending money on trying to turn them into professional products, and if so, who?

There's a list in Edward's essay, you could start there.

Also, Lands of Adventure. I owned that once, it was painful to read.

Quote from: smiorgan;712283There's a list in Edward's essay, you could start there.

Also, Lands of Adventure. I owned that once, it was painful to read.

Wait, wait. Written by Lee Gold? Published by FGU?

Sorry, kids, no, not in the bush leagues with the ones Edwards lists.

I still have LoA around somewhere, I think. Not the kind of thing for my current game group, but that's partly because it's not trying to be D&D.

The Imagine RPG is the most perfect example of a Fantasy Heartbreaker Ive come across

Ooh, Edwards admits his preference for "base principles!" Maybe Jim LotFP could borrow that line to rile the Swine.