Okay, this could be considered a shameless plug for our newest setting that is currently on Kickstarter (ElfWood (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1299187159/elfwood-for-sixcess-core)). But that is not the intent. I'd really like some feedback. This group of people has shown a capacity to analyze and offer suggestions (some easy to take, some less so) - but always good, solid response. Sure, it's nice that we can present some of this and get your attention on our product, but our desire is feedback and discussion, not simply promotion (though, admittedly, that is a nice side benefit).
In fact, the solid, constructive responses from this site is a big reason why we chose to advertise here. We may not always agree. We may have a different perspective than what is posted. But, overall, this is a place we feel that we can trust for some honest, direct and no-holds-barred commentary on our thoughts, ideas and products.
However, we are looking for perspectives on what makes something a "Fantasy Heartbreaker"?
Statistically, fantasy games garner the highest sales. I don't know how skewed that is with Pathfinder and D&D in consideration. Is it really true that a fantasy setting sells better than other genres amongst companies that offer lots of support for other settings?
So, tell us:
What makes a game a "heartbreaker" by definition? Is it that lots of time, money, blood, sweat and tears are poured into the product and it fails to perform?
This is relevant to us because we're releasing ElfWood - a fantasy setting with some twists. I'm hoping it performs. But, to be honest, I'm hoping it's more of a "gateway" into our other realms.
Promised Sands (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1299187159/promised-sands-for-sixcess-core) was our first full setting released and it did pretty well. It's sorta / kinda fantasy - with a large dose of post-apoc.
But ElfWood (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1299187159/elfwood-for-sixcess-core) is pure fantasy (with twists).
Our worlds are always a bit "wonky" - and that's how we like them. Are the twists too much? Or are they not enough?
Elves that are born from trees and grow trees from their heart-seeds when they die - such that their roots, branches and trunks entertwine, growing into the great "Mother Trees" of the forest. Three distinct branches of their race: Vyrden (forest), Stygian (dark) and Sanguine (blood).
Dwarg who have no females and literally "spring from the earth" to be taken in and adopted by "mentor/fathers" who raise them as members of their great "fatherland".
Humans devastated by a blight, a plague - that devastated their reproductive abilities and drove them into a nomadic, wandering existence dependent on a similarly blighted ("scalding") ocean.
Orcs who are born from the remains of elves slain in violence, whose thorny trees produce orcs in the same way that the Mother Trees produce elves.
M'raak halfbreeds - half-elf, half-orc - who wander about, not truly accepted by either branch that created them.
Taurim raised from the bison of the great plains by the humans to "take over" for them when they took to the seas, before the blight. Now they rule the great lands to the west of the elvish isles.
Kague were born from the same plague the devastated the humans, having settled into the dark places and the sewers.
Drey, also raised from the creeping things of the world, who live a hivelike existence, hunting the Elves for the life magic in their heart-seeds.
Windsormen, the living ElfWood statues of men who once crewed the greatest of their vessels -- the Wind Soar. Wandering in unlife, unable to retain memories more than 30 - 50 years.
The world is Lakates, a ringed world, full of life, light on minerals, dominated by the elven culture, on the brink of war, facing the portents of prophecy.
We strive not to present a "metaplot" to the world, rather to tell the whole history and give GMs the freedom to establish their own games within the timeline whenever they see fit. No future products to change the timeline. No force-feeding timeline updates through newly released products.
We're trying very hard not to box anyone in - and we encourage GMs to creatively alter anything we present to better fit their gaming groups.
I'd really like your thoughts on this - is this a "fantasy heartbreaker"?
You're using a sometimes contentious term purely as bait to draw people into a thread that's really just an ad for your game. You don't want a discussion, you just want customers. Fuck you.
It sure looks like one.
Eponymous essay with original definition here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/).
Well here's the original essay on the subject http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/ (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/) . It's not exactly a scientific classification so I don't think there is much point arguing the semantics about what is a heartbreaker and what isn't.
One thing to bear in mind the essay is looking mostly at 90s games and 90s gaming culture when publishing options for a game were very different. My feeling gut feeling would be to say osr and the modernised "tribute" games are an entirely different development.
And yes, it is yet another Forge term that has gone mainstream.
Quote from: Ben Rogers;711469However, we are looking for perspectives on what makes something a "Fantasy Heartbreaker"?
In over 40 years of gaming I've never heard that term used related to a game. Probably should use terminology that is used broadly by the community if looking for a meaningful response.
Quote from: Arduin;711480In over 40 years of gaming I've never heard that term used related to a game. Probably should use terminology that is used broadly by the community if looking for a meaningful response.
Or you just don't get out much.
Quote from: Soylent Green;711479One thing to bear in mind the essay is looking mostly at 90s games and 90s gaming culture when publishing options for a game were very different. My feeling gut feeling would be to say osr and the modernised "tribute" games are an entirely different development.
Yeah; they aren't trying to be not-D&D and kinda failing, they're just just being D&D. Different thing.
For the rest of this;
Quote from: soviet;711476You're using a sometimes contentious term purely as bait to draw people into a thread that's really just an ad for your game. You don't want a discussion, you just want customers. Fuck you.
Quote from: Bobloblah;711485Or you just don't get out much.
Google gives 987 hits on TheRPGSite alone for the term "fantasy heartbreaker: http://www.google.co.nz/#q=%22fantasy+heartbreaker%22+site:therpgsite.com
Quote from: Skywalker;711488Google gives 987 hits on TheRPGSite alone for the term "fantasy heartbreaker: http://www.google.co.nz/#q=%22fantasy+heartbreaker%22+site:therpgsite.com
I should have known. A term made up my elf fan boi Edwards. No wonder it isn't in use in the real world.
The original essay about fantasy heartbreakers is a must-read for any game designer. It's not an attack on those authors creating fantasy games. It's a warning about "almost-good" games that needed to take one more step in an original direction, but instead fell back on some D&Dism that ended up dooming the game.
Many retro-whatevers (those not true retroclones) in the OSR can fit under that definition. There have also been WoD heart breakers, especially in the 90s when you saw RPGs that came out that leaned too hard on Vampire.
I thought a "heartbreaker" had to remind you of the good old days?
For me, I would say no, not a match.
From the essay, I got the sense that it breaks Ron Edwards' heart. I don't mean this facetiously.
It's a game that has something mechanically interesting about it (e.g. a cool magic system or whatever), but then which unthinkingly accepts the trappings and assumptions of D&D (or whatever).
So heartbreaker: "This game breaks my heart. The magic system is cool, but it doesn't live up to the hope I had that it would be really interesting from a game design perspective, in other respects it has no aspirations to interesting game design."
Not being involved with the Forge at all, and completely unaware of an article about "fantasy heartbreakers" -- I was familiar with the term, but unaware of the origins or article...
I found this interesting:
QuoteAll of these games have skill lists.
The system we use has skills, so this could apply.
QuoteAll of them except one have randomized attribute systems, but also an extensive set of secondary attributes which serve to homogenize the actual Effective values (i.e., those used in play).
We don't use random attribute systems. We use resource allocation or lifepath creation.
QuoteAll of them greatly emphasize character race (species, really) as a major modifier of the randomized attribute system.
Culture is actually more of an emphasis than race/species -- and, again, nothing random.
QuoteAll of them have levels in one fashion or another, but interestingly, in all cases, a very diminished version of levels with not-terribly-notable effects on the character's game effectiveness, compared with the role of skill proficiency.
Nothing in Sixcess is based on "levels". Each attribute, skill, power, etc. has a "rank" - but that's more of a rating of how developed the attributes, skill, power, etc. is.
QuoteAll of them "crunchify" D&D combat in a RuneQuest or Rolemaster or DragonQuest fashion, placing emphasis on individual character speed and action-by-action (freeze-frame) resolution.
Our focus is actually more on story. The mechanics are there just to help you resolve random events.
QuoteAlmost all of them rely heavily on damage rolls, but make some effort to integrate "how well you hit" into the final effect.
Our "how well you hit" and "damage" are the exact same roll - thus, I don't think this fits, either.
QuoteAll of them have one speedy-race, one or more brute-race, and one pretty-race (either winged humanoids or kitty-people), as well as the standard elves and dwarves.
Let's see...
Elves, Dwarves, humans - yes.
Taurim could be termed "brutes" - but they tend toward the gentle side
No real "pretty" race.
We have a winged race - but they're actually kinda nasty.
We have ratlings - but they're also really nasty.
Orcs are playable - again, nasty.
M'raak (Half-orc/half-elf) - despised and downtrodden.
Windsormen - animated wooden statues, basically. Don't really fit any of the descriptions above.
QuoteNot one uses a D&D style magic system (much more about this later).
This one is true - we don't use a D&D-style magic system. There are three types of magic in ElfWood and none of it "D&D-style".
Eight items listed, two potential "yes" items and six definite "no" items.
As someone else said, this isn't so much a scientific test. So, are there any other typical fixtures/features of a "fantasy heartbreaker"?
As 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.
Quote from: Ben Rogers;711516As someone else said, this isn't so much a scientific test. So, are there any other typical fixtures/features of a "fantasy heartbreaker"?
What 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;
Quote from: Ron Edwardsor a deliberate attempt not only to present but to enlighten the reader about the self-perceived innovations.
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 (http://damianov.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/rpg-archive-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 (http://damianov.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/rpg-archive-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.
Speaking of LL (because it's the only one on the list with which I'm acquainted): It's "just like D&D" only to the same extent that RuneQuest and DragonQuest, The Fantasy Trip and Swordbearer, Tunnels & Trolls and Warhammer FRP and Talislanta and Earthdawn are just like D&D. In the ways that actually matter to most gamers in my experience -- "System Matters," which I thought was a Forge shibboleth -- they are all strikingly different.
They are all about a fantastic world of premodern aspect in which humans interact with nonhuman beings and supernatural powers. In other words, by Edwards' reckoning, much of classic literature, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Saga of Beowulf, from the Ramayana to the Oddysey, from the Bible to the Morte d'Arthur, is all just the same and therefore a waste!
His apparent real beef is not that they are all like D&D, but that they are not all like his ideal of a rules set packed with "metagame" contraptions, one that constrains itself to an artificially limited scenario built around a single mechanical innovation, yadda yadda.
Well, it happens that many -- perhaps most -- people find your ideal BORING, Edwards! Why it should be regarded as a shortcoming on their part that they make up pastimes they actually enjoy is a real stumper, pal.
You races sound interesting and fun to play. I'm not much into the system, but your Promised Sands setting looked interesting as well.
I frankly wouldn't worry about theorists and what they think about your game. It doesn't matter if it is/is not a "fantasy heartbreaker".
What does matter is how you like your game. Is it something you would play? It is something you WANT to play? Are excited about sharing this setting with others?
The really good stuff in our hobby comes from super excited RPG geeks who dig what they're doing. They love creating for the sake of it, and then sharing that work.
I think one of the best ways to garner interest in a game is to share free stuff (maps, characters, short stories, adventures, monster write-ups, etc.) on a website and then share that with fellow RPG geeks. With all the stuff available out there, why should I buy your stuff? Show me some quality, some inventiveness, some neat ideas. Show me your stuff is worth having.
Don't worry so much about the "theory". Create and share. That seems to be the driving force behind the successful "indie" publishers (IMHO).
Quote from: Phillip;712285I 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.
Well, I agree, it's trying to be RQ rather than D&D (at least from what I remember of the skills and percentages and derived stats and different kinds of HP)
"Fantasy Heartbreaker" is still fair, though. LoA is an attempt at a generic fantasy toolkit but clearly reflects the early 80s D&D / RQ zeitgeist in how it goes about things.
Quote from: TristramEvans;712142The term is meaningless since the OSR. To understand it, you had to be there.
I agree.
Also, how "fantasy heartbreaker" was used in Ron's essay is not how it is used by forumites in the decade since then.
Quote from: smiorgan;712294Well, I agree, it's trying to be RQ rather than D&D.
Bullshit. It was, IIRC, the rules set Lee developed for her own campaigns. No "trying to be" something else, and it does not especially resemble RQ.
QuoteLoA is an attempt at a generic fantasy toolkit but clearly reflects the early 80s D&D / RQ zeitgeist in how it goes about things.
BUT???
Yeah, Casablanca is an attempt at a wartime romance, but clearly reflects the early 1940s Hollywood zeitgeist in how it goes about things. Needz moar lens flarez n shaky cam dood kuz dats phat jj abrams duz it michael curtiz don' so he sux!!
Quote from: Spinachcat;712297Also, how "fantasy heartbreaker" was used in Ron's essay is not how it is used by forumites in the decade since then.
How is it used?
Quote from: Phillip;712302Bullshit. It was, IIRC, the rules set Lee developed for her own campaigns. No "trying to be" something else, and it does not especially resemble RQ.
Of course it isn't, I was being glib.
But, that's the whole point, innit. LoA is no more trying to be RQ than the other "heartbreakers" are trying to be D&D. They're clearly doing the opposite, trying to differentiate themselves from D&D, RQ and the others, but not getting very far away.
QuoteBUT???
Yeah, Casablanca is an attempt at a wartime romance, but clearly reflects the early 1940s Hollywood zeitgeist in how it goes about things. Needz moar lens flarez n shaky cam dood kuz dats phat jj abrams duz it michael curtiz don' so he sux!!
Er... lol?
Quote from: Ben Rogers;711469What makes a game a "heartbreaker" by definition?
Definitions vary. Edwards' original definition was idiosyncratic and generally not what people seem to mean when they use the term in general practice. (Or rather, Edwards' definition ends up being much more specific than the term's practical usage.)
In general, the term "fantasy heartbreaker" seems to only apply properly to
systems, not settings. So I would never consider a fantasy setting supplement for a generic ruleset (like your
Elfwood product) to be a fantasy heartbreaker.
With that being said, settings can have similar problems: There's both the Forgotten Realms Clone where you can't figure out why you'd want to use that setting instead of just picking up the better known and better supported alternatives. And there's also the Talislanta Syndrome where you're really, really proud of whatever twists you've created to make your game
totally different from a generic D&D setting while still looking a lot like a generic D&D setting (i.e., "we've got no fucking elves, but we sure do have a lot of forest-dwelling humanoids with pointy ears and an affinity for magic").
Re: Fantasy heartbreakers.
For me, I'm willing to call just about any traditional RPG designed to emulate generic fantasy (i.e., D&D fantasy) a fantasy heartbreaker. These games are trying to compete head-to-head with D&D and they're never going to win. The advantages of familiarity and player base are too significant and too large to overcome.
The real fantasy heartbreakers, though, are the games that are D&D with the serial numbers filed off and a couple of "improvements" that they think are going to win the day for them. (Pre-3E adding a skill system was usually a key indicator. Dissing class systems for being "unrealistic" still ranks high on the list of warning signs.)
Retro-clones muddy this distinction somewhat. My general impulse is to say that they generally can't be fantasy heartbreakers as the term is typically understood.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;712444For me, I'm willing to call just about any traditional RPG designed to emulate generic fantasy (i.e., D&D fantasy) a fantasy heartbreaker. These games are trying to compete head-to-head with D&D and they're never going to win. The advantages of familiarity and player base are too significant and too large to overcome.
I think the term is useless, and has become just a generic insult.
Many games have positioned themselves as being a close alternate to D&D, and still done well for themselves - from Tunnels & Trolls to Rolemaster (originally created as alternate D&D rules) to Pathfinder. They don't have to "win" in competition with D&D (although Pathfinder did, market-wise). They just have to be able to capture a subset of D&D players who are dissatisfied with the rules in a particular way.
There were also plenty of smaller D&D-fantasy games that still had audiences. The explosion of OSR games is the latest example, but in previous eras you had alternate games like Iron Heroes or Castles & Crusades, and before that games like Powers & Perils, Palladium Fantasy, Chivalry & Sorcery, and more.
Sure, there were plenty of failures - but the vast majority of all RPGs are failures in all genres.
Quote from: jhkim;712505I think the term is useless, and has become just a generic insult.
Many games have positioned themselves as being a close alternate to D&D, and still done well for themselves - from Tunnels & Trolls to Rolemaster (originally created as alternate D&D rules) to Pathfinder. They don't have to "win" in competition with D&D (although Pathfinder did, market-wise). They just have to be able to capture a subset of D&D players who are dissatisfied with the rules in a particular way.
There were also plenty of smaller D&D-fantasy games that still had audiences. The explosion of OSR games is the latest example, but in previous eras you had alternate games like Iron Heroes or Castles & Crusades, and before that games like Powers & Perils, Palladium Fantasy, Chivalry & Sorcery, and more.
Sure, there were plenty of failures - but the vast majority of all RPGs are failures in all genres.
T&T and Rolemaster though werent setting out to beat D&D. They were just the designers idea of what they wanted in a RPG. Especially T&T. The designer states in the intro they wanted a simpler RPG and set out to do so.
Quote from: jhkim;712505I think the term is useless, and has become just a generic insult.
Which is unfortunate because the lessons of the original term have value to hopeful game designers.
Quote from: jhkim;712505Many games have positioned themselves as being a close alternate to D&D, and still done well for themselves - from Tunnels & Trolls to Rolemaster (originally created as alternate D&D rules) to Pathfinder. They don't have to "win" in competition with D&D (although Pathfinder did, market-wise). They just have to be able to capture a subset of D&D players who are dissatisfied with the rules in a particular way.
T&T has done well enough for Flying Buffalo, which from the start has had other things going (and apparently you can still play Starweb for just a dollar per turn!). Palladium has done very well with D&D-ish RPG material as its mainstay.
QuoteSure, there were plenty of failures - but the vast majority of all RPGs are failures in all genres.
It might amount to fewer "failures" if the measure of success is that of the designers, publishers and players themselves. The whole matter is like people pretending to know by second-guessing what someone else's "cost" is when they claim he's selling "below cost," and other such fallacies of treating economics as something engaged in by abstractions rather than by human beings.
I tend to think of Fantasy Heartbreakers as one persons vision of their perfect version of D&D or similar which they mortgaged their house/raided the kids college fund/borrowed money from their parents etc to get into print, and which ends up clogging up their garage/basement with boxes full of unsold copies, apart from the ones their own small gaming group bought.
The internet has changed that - you can knock out a PDF for a cost of zero upwards and at least you won't clog up your basement/garage with unsold copies. The flipside is that there are so many of these things it's not easy to figure out which are playable, which are interesting, and which are plain shit.
For the OP - does your game:
1) Bring something new, different, better than anything/everything that has gone before?
2) Will it create a buzz at conventions/internet forums to get people talking about it/trying it out?
3) be remembered in 1 week/month/year/decade?
If the answer to any of those is 'maybe' or 'no' I would seriously consider not giving up your day job to write this thing and whatever you do don't sell the car/house/kids into slavery to pay for fancy art.
Or of course you could try Kickstarter - chances are you might rustle up enough hapless punters to get your houseruled D&D game into print and looking nice, alongside the reams of other mostly forgotten games that are churned out every week/month.
Sorry to sound like a cynic but I'm as guilty as many others of backing kickstarters that I forget about or download but never even look at. I'll be carefully considering all Kickstarters in future rather than blindly backing everything that looks vaguely interesting. Unless the answer to those three questions above are 'yes' chances are I'll pass on by. The world only needs a few versions of the same game, tweaked and polished in various ways. We have dozens now, in the future there may be hundreds or more all doing the same thing in a slightly different way.
Sometimes there is such a thing as too much choice.
Quote from: APN;712797For the OP - does your game:
1) Bring something new, different, better than anything/everything that has gone before?
Quite a few new and different things, yes. "Better"? Too subjective for me to say. My "better" could be your "worse". Yes, ElfWood is significantly "different" - yet familiar.
Quote from: APN;7127972) Will it create a buzz at conventions/internet forums to get people talking about it/trying it out?
We've playtested it at two Gen Cons and several other smaller cons. So far, it's generating a lot of buzz, creating fans, people are finding it fascinating and different.
Quote from: APN;7127973) be remembered in 1 week/month/year/decade?
Two years on (playtested and Gen Con 2012 and 2013) and people are still clamoring for it. We aren't a big company. We haven't advertised a lot. Yet, we're building a fan-base. Many of the people who are enjoying it are already asking for expansions and additional setting details.
Quote from: APN;712797If the answer to any of those is 'maybe' or 'no' I would seriously consider not giving up your day job to write this thing and whatever you do don't sell the car/house/kids into slavery to pay for fancy art.
Even with "yes" as an answer to all those questions, I'm not anywhere near considering giving up the day job! LOL
Or of course you could try Kickstarter - chances are you might rustle up enough hapless punters to get your houseruled D&D game into print and looking nice, alongside the reams of other mostly forgotten games that are churned out every week/month.
Quote from: APN;712797Sorry to sound like a cynic but I'm as guilty as many others of backing kickstarters that I forget about or download but never even look at. I'll be carefully considering all Kickstarters in future rather than blindly backing everything that looks vaguely interesting. Unless the answer to those three questions above are 'yes' chances are I'll pass on by. The world only needs a few versions of the same game, tweaked and polished in various ways. We have dozens now, in the future there may be hundreds or more all doing the same thing in a slightly different way.
Sometimes there is such a thing as too much choice.
You actually don't sound like as much of a cynic as quite a few others that I've heard.
Bottom line: This isn't D&D. We aren't interested in making a "more exciting wheel" when the "old wheel" works just fine. Our philosophy is such that we don't think that D&D = fantasy. Fantasy is a genre and D&D is a game system that allows you to play games in that genre.
Our game system (
Sixcess) allows you to play in many different genres -
ElfWood is the fantasy setting that we created for
Sixcess.
Promised Sands is another setting that blends fantasy and post-apoc.
In the very near future a mini-setting called
Invasion of the Fourth Reich will be released (like in the next couple weeks).
And after
ElfWood has launched, we'll be kickstarting
Extraordinary Voyages - which is our take on steampunk / pulpy sci-fi.
Bottom line, we produce settings that are somewhat "wonky" - unusual, different, with new perspectives and tweaks on stereotypes.
I'd encourage you to look at ElfWood. You might be surprised at what you find. :)
Quote from: fuseboy;711507So heartbreaker: "This game breaks my heart. The magic system is cool, but it doesn't live up to the hope I had that it would be really interesting from a game design perspective, in other respects it has no aspirations to interesting game design."
But then couldn't you cobble together a patchwork abomination of a game out of the cool magic system from heartbreaker and the cool martial maneuvers from heartbreaker 2 along with the wilderness rules from game x and the anal circumference saves from FATAL?