Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283041Had a look at the FTA sampler via that DF thread and what most struck me is the art at the beginning. It's not a good choice for old school and IMO it's also incongruous with the title. I always thought FTA was an over the top name for an RPG but that piece is so...earnest.

Sigh. Like all the illos, that's mine.

The reason it's not a good choice for old school is that I am not an old school illustrator, I don't want to be one, and I have no use for being one. FtA! is not an old school game. FtA! is a new game that tries - and very successfully in my opinion - for an old school feel in play. It uses modern system tools to achieve that feel.

I didn't feel I needed to copy Erol Otis as it's not a clone of D&D at all. If anything old school it's closer to T&T. I never intended to market it to or for old school players. They have their old games (and retro-clones of those old games) that they are happy with, and I respect that. I don't advertise it at Old School fora, and I don't suggest it when people talk about old school games on various fora.

It's actually a brilliant intro game for newbies. That's what it's designed for, and it succeeds beautifully in my opinion.

-clash

Apologies if I've touched a nerve. I would like to look at the game sometime and see if my off the cuff opinion still holds. Old school or not, that one illo's style just seems too serious for a lighthearted game of mayhem, or for kids who want "action!"

Quote from: flyingmice;283057I never intended to market it to or for old school players. They have their old games (and retro-clones of those old games) that they are happy with, and I respect that. I don't advertise it at Old School fora, and I don't suggest it when people talk about old school games on various fora.

See, I think this is one of the problems I have with it. It is unclearly defined. I have a similar problem with some of my games. See, I think SA! is successful, in part, because it is clear what it is. With FtA it seems, to me, to be old school...but not....new...but not...and intro game...but not. So, from a message point of view, you get a fair amount of waffling. When a game can be point blank said to be a thing, it does better. SA! is a humorous game. Yeah, you could play it seriously (I find it alarming the number of folks who tell me they do just that) but that is not the "message". Humor. Play Squirrels. Easy to grasp and easy to know if you will like it.

However, all you have to do is have me try to explain Supers Inc. and you will see the same problem...

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283079Apologies if I've touched a nerve.

It's OK, Elliot - I had just posted yesterday about how FtA! wasn't an old-school game. That was why the sigh.

QuoteI would like to look at the game sometime and see if my off the cuff opinion still holds. Old school or not, that one illo's style just seems too serious for a lighthearted game of mayhem, or for kids who want "action!"

I think the illo I chose does it's job, showing a character using a skill, which is far more difficult than you'd think.

(Image removed to prevent future confusion.)

I didn't choose the sample for the illo, I chose it because of the text. Stunting is the cool mechanic of the game - what makes it stand out from the crowd. The illo is just showing a character using a skill - in this case, Wilderness Lore. In other words, "Elf woman fighter using Wilderness Lore skill to track something in a desert."

FtA! can be played very lighthearted, but there is nothing lighthearted mandated in the text. I generally run it as fairly serious, but that's my nature as a GM. FtA!GN! is much more comic, though it has its serious bits as well. I even used a couple of cartoons in illustrating FtA!GN!

-clash

Quote from: HinterWelt;283080See, I think this is one of the problems I have with it. It is unclearly defined. I have a similar problem with some of my games. See, I think SA! is successful, in part, because it is clear what it is. With FtA it seems, to me, to be old school...but not....new...but not...and intro game...but not. So, from a message point of view, you get a fair amount of waffling. When a game can be point blank said to be a thing, it does better. SA! is a humorous game. Yeah, you could play it seriously (I find it alarming the number of folks who tell me they do just that) but that is not the "message". Humor. Play Squirrels. Easy to grasp and easy to know if you will like it.

However, all you have to do is have me try to explain Supers Inc. and you will see the same problem...

Hi Bill:

I don't see that as a problem for a game, just a problem for marketing a game. I *prefer* less focused games that I can bend to *my* will. If FtA! were just an old school game, or just a humorous game, or just a beginner's game I wouldn't have loved it so much and I wouldn't have wanted to publish it. It's why I prefer Nebuleon and Shades of Earth to SA.

Quote from: CavScout;282956Oh no, someone's e-peen might be bigger so lets argue about what ruler we can use to measure!

Um, no not really. If Monte Cook, or Kevin Siembieda, or any number of other dudes, including lesser-known-dudes than the above said that to me, about games they actually designed, there'd really be no debate. But when all you've done is basically re-compile the most popular RPG in history, you're not really allowed to call it "your" game.   That would be a little like a guy who makes elevator muzak jingles out of "The Girl From Ipanema" trying to claim that he invented Bossa Nova.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWelt;283080See, I think this is one of the problems I have with it. It is unclearly defined. I have a similar problem with some of my games. See, I think SA! is successful, in part, because it is clear what it is. With FtA it seems, to me, to be old school...but not....new...but not...and intro game...but not. So, from a message point of view, you get a fair amount of waffling. When a game can be point blank said to be a thing, it does better. SA! is a humorous game. Yeah, you could play it seriously (I find it alarming the number of folks who tell me they do just that) but that is not the "message". Humor. Play Squirrels. Easy to grasp and easy to know if you will like it.

Yes, FtA! is not a microgame. Its actually usable for long-term play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmice;283087Hi Bill:

I don't see that as a problem for a game, just a problem for marketing a game. I *prefer* less focused games that I can bend to *my* will. If FtA! were just an old school game, or just a humorous game, or just a beginner's game I wouldn't have loved it so much and I wouldn't have wanted to publish it. It's why I prefer Nebuleon and Shades of Earth to SA.

Well, the problem WITH the game comes when the expectations of the customer are not met. If someone buys FtA thinking they are getting an old school game, will they be disappointed? Possibly. What makes this doubly frustrating is that they may not. It is not outside the realm of the purpose of the game to be one that scratches the old school gamer itch. Sure, not a retro-clone but in the spirit of it. So, it becomes one of managing expectations, pointing to reviews and getting your patter about the game down pat.

And as to your point, I agree. It is why I write my games the way I do. I am doing it again with Zombipocalypse. How do I describe it? A zombie game? A sci-fi game? A post-apoc game? All three? Again, a vague definition that will not aid the sale or the understanding of the game.

In the end, Clash, I am just saying that to me, expectation of the person playing my games is VERY important to me. I do not even want someone to sit down at my table with the expectation of a 1930's pulp game and end up with Shades. Sure, I could run it that way but I think the player would be disappointed. This goes doubly so for a customer. If they are considering my books I want them to get as clear an idea of the game as possible. Unfortunately, I think that you and I make games that are...hard to peg in one genre...no, how about not easily summed up? And yes, I like it that way too.

Quote from: RPGPundit;283108Yes, FtA! is not a microgame. Its actually usable for long-term play.

RPGPundit

You misunderstand. I am not talking about a microgame but a clear definition for customers. What is FtA? Fantasy? Old school fantasy? A universal tool kit? New indie inspired fantasy? Is it a setting or a system sourcebook? The confusion that has arisen in this thread alone (on your site I might add) goes a long way to showing that there is some confusion on this point. Clarity to the customer about exactly what your product is can only help with customer satisfaction and sales.

Oh, and I might add, so is SA! I have had folks tell me of their campaigns with squirrels, chipmonks, dogs, cats and a one guy mentioned a possum. However, that is not the message I try and send. I choose to send a very clear "This is a one night game, humorous, where you play squirrels".

Quote from: HinterWelt;283113Well, the problem WITH the game comes when the expectations of the customer are not met. If someone buys FtA thinking they are getting an old school game, will they be disappointed? Possibly. What makes this doubly frustrating is that they may not. It is not outside the realm of the purpose of the game to be one that scratches the old school gamer itch. Sure, not a retro-clone but in the spirit of it. So, it becomes one of managing expectations, pointing to reviews and getting your patter about the game down pat.

I have throughout been VERY careful not to call it an old school game, and to ensure people know the mechanics are not old school in form or function. Can they get an old school "feel" in an FtA! game? Very much. Is it for old school gamers? No. They are happy with what games they have. It's a complex concept which I have been doing my best to handle truthfully. What is FtA!, really? It's a kick-ass game for newbies, designed to integrate old and familiar concepts with new, streamlined techniques to reach the fun. Unfortunately, there is no method I can access that will reach the newbie market, such as it is.

QuoteAnd as to your point, I agree. It is why I write my games the way I do. I am doing it again with Zombipocalypse. How do I describe it? A zombie game? A sci-fi game? A post-apoc game? All three? Again, a vague definition that will not aid the sale or the understanding of the game.

In the end, Clash, I am just saying that to me, expectation of the person playing my games is VERY important to me. I do not even want someone to sit down at my table with the expectation of a 1930's pulp game and end up with Shades. Sure, I could run it that way but I think the player would be disappointed. This goes doubly so for a customer. If they are considering my books I want them to get as clear an idea of the game as possible. Unfortunately, I think that you and I make games that are...hard to peg in one genre...no, how about not easily summed up? And yes, I like it that way too.

Apparently Pundit as well. I had nothing to do with the creation of this game beyond editing it (minor, as Pundit is a very good writer who doesn't wander off the topic) and illustrating it (major.)

-clash

Edit: If folks want to discuss this further, please separate it into another thread! I think we're irritating the old school guys.

Sorry clash, but I don't see how a game with a cover that looks like that is ever going to sell, no matter how brilliant the rules.  That is... not nice.

In the spirit of constructive criticism:

• I think the "montage of images" approach is much less effective than a single compelling scene.

• More as a matter of taste, I'm not too keen on the drawing style, which appears to be photographs run through filters to look like watercolors.

• That said, the two illos I like best are the one with the two knights and the one with the archer.

• Given the title, I'd look for a picture that has more of a sense of, well, going forth and confronting the unknown/adventuring. Therefore the main subjects should be facing somewhat away from the viewer, focusing their attention on something outside the illustration, or on some kind of challenge (a fortress, a group of menacing humanoids, a single large monster, etc.). By "somewhat away" I mean anywhere from 30º off center to nearly dead away from the viewer; the idea is to show that the character(s) are moving toward something adventurous which is either illustrated or suggested.

A couple of covers which I think handle this sort of theme well include In the Labyrinth, RQ3 (both showing how the adventurers can be focusing forward on an "adventure" that's in the foreground), and Fantasy Hero 1e (not as effective in execution but it shows the idea).

Quote from: S'mon;283119Sorry clash, but I don't see how a game with a cover that looks like that is ever going to sell, no matter how brilliant the rules.  That is... not nice.

Thanks for your opinion, S'mon.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283126In the spirit of constructive criticism:

Thanks for your opinion, Elliot. I replied in the other thread.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWelt;283114You misunderstand. I am not talking about a microgame but a clear definition for customers. What is FtA? Fantasy? Old school fantasy? A universal tool kit? New indie inspired fantasy? Is it a setting or a system sourcebook? The confusion that has arisen in this thread alone (on your site I might add) goes a long way to showing that there is some confusion on this point. Clarity to the customer about exactly what your product is can only help with customer satisfaction and sales.

The answer is more or less like the answer to "What is D&D?".

FtA! is certainly fantasy, has certainly got an old-school feel, it is a toolkit (not a universal one in the GURPS sense, though), and it is not a setting (there is a setting in FtA!GN! of course, but that's strictly optional).

The idea that an RPG will only be good, or will be better, if its limited to being only ONE of the above things, is nothing more than moronic Forge propaganda. History (and D&D) has proven the opposite to be true.

RPGPundit