online presentation: divorced setting / rules?

[Jasper]

Hello.  I've done a search for past threads but haven't found anything specifically addressing this.

I'm currently developing my game Principium Novum and am planning on a web-based release some time in the near future of a free, basic version of the rules.  A more complete version, and one which has been revised through playtesting, will be available for purchase at a later time.  I'm hoping that the basic version can be used to drum up some interest, and be available to potential playtesters, thus improving the final game.

Principium Novum is set at the end of the Roman Empire, but I was planning on having additional supplements for other settings, or at least a single guide with ideas for other possible uses of the system.  I'm now debating whether this is the best way to present the game however: would it be better to present the mechanics by themselves, and save all setting material (most of which has yet to be written) for the for-sale version?

I certainly have the feeling that around here (i.e. Forge-land), a brief and concise write-up of mechanics is appreciated, at least for first taking a look at a game.  Such a presentation has the advantage of clearly getting across the "what do you do?" without any kind of baggage.  And those with little interest in published settings will find it easier to work with.  On the other hand, a strong setting might give the rules more flavor and some concrete substance, potentially hooking in people who are interested in the setting, and making the rules more approachable...though of course it would depend on exactly how the rules were written.


Thinking about abstract possibilities is always hard, so I did up two versions of a "splash page," one for each possibility:

If I were to present the setting with the rules, as Principium Novum, I might use a page like this: http://www.people.umass.edu/jasperm/primeval/games/PN.html

While if I presented the system by itself, I would call it impetus, and do something like this: http://www.people.umass.edu/jasperm/primeval/games/impetus.html


Any thoughts?  I'm not asking for an opinion poll on which of the two is better really, but these illustrate what the differences might be.  Of course, there may be problems with my presentation of the game/system either way, and I'd be glad to hear any suggestions on that front.  Has anyone tried both methods at one time or another and seen more sucess with one of them? Or just noticed a general trend?  Keep in mind that at this point I'm not selling anything, but just looking to (a) get the word our a little and (b) find a few very interested people who might actually play it, more or less as playtesters.

Thanks.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Principium Novum is set at the end of the Roman Empire, but I was planning on having additional supplements for other settings, or at least a single guide with ideas for other possible uses of the system.  I'm now debating whether this is the best way to present the game however: would it be better to present the mechanics by themselves, and save all setting material (most of which has yet to be written) for the for-sale version?

I'd say the key is in realizing what you are trying to achieve, and following that. It's trite, but that's what you are doing with every other decision you do, no? There's many games that exemplarize one of these approaches, and they both can work quite finely.

That said, I myself am partial to embedded design. You have to sell the game; as Mike Pohjola commented on his critically failed roleplaying game Myrskyn Aika, the mistake he did was to catalogue the material without explanation, instead of showcasing and outlining the work. The result: few ever cared to play the game and get to the stage where (according to Mike) the game's hidden brilliance would reveal itself.

This is a part of the same phenomenon: I don't want to play a generic system, and I don't believe too many others want to. By demarcation you implicate that there is no inherent worth in your setting, it's just something you threw in because there should be something playable in there, but really you prefer for gamemasters to make their own.

I certainly have the feeling that around here (i.e. Forge-land), a brief and concise write-up of mechanics is appreciated, at least for first taking a look at a game.  Such a presentation has the advantage of clearly getting across the "what do you do?" without any kind of baggage.  And those with little interest in published settings will find it easier to work with.  On the other hand, a strong setting might give the rules more flavor and some concrete substance, potentially hooking in people who are interested in the setting, and making the rules more approachable...though of course it would depend on exactly how the rules were written.

The latter reasonings are much more important to most games, and you should note that there is usually good reason for the setting being pushed to the background with the best games of that kind. Take MLwM (largely because I've played it a lot lately): the reason it's objective, no-nonsense approach works is that the designer has simply assumed you know what genre we are talking about. That, and the mechanics are so focused that there really is no need for additional color.

With this game (which I've admittedly haven't had any time to scope very exactly) I'd go with intense grounding. Think Riddle of Steel: the system is a generic swordplay simulation set in a five-pence fantasy world, but despite that it is firmly grounded at places by judicious use of old engravings, early renaissance weapon sets and generally by focusing the rules through paraphelia at a certain kind of fourteenth century aesthetic.

Give things like attributes latin names; write the openin fic in latin, too, and put tags in at nonessential spots all around in form of short commentary; give a strong scenario grounded in the age; illustrate strongly and evocatively; interspede rules text with setting information even, if you really want to get rid of this weak-livered "logical" structure they espouse in WotC style guide. As far as I see, you have to strive for a strong reading experience to get the reader to make the jump to a new system and setting.

Any thoughts?

The former was an ideal case of course, and I tend to have a little radical ideas in the presentation department, so don't take me too seriously.

About the name: I seem to distinctly remember commenting on this earlier. "Principium Novum" could mean "new beginning", but more probably it brings to mind "new foundation". A beginning is a foundation is a beginning, you see, but they are slightly different things in both languages. You'd be better off with 'initium', as in "Initium Novum" or even "Initio Novo" for "at a new beginning". Initium is used for reigns of emperors, initiating into mysteries, first letters of the alphabet, the basic elements, and so on. Other possibilities are "Initus Novus" for "a new opening/beginning", "Orsus Novus" for "a new undertaking", "Tirocinius Novus" for "a new apprentice" or even "Origo Nova" for "a new source of beginning" :> Alternatives for 'new' are "innovatus" for "made new", "mustus" for "new, fresh", "novellus" for "new, unfamiliar", "novicius" for "new, novice" and "recens" for "new, recent".

I'd have adviced on this earlier, but didn't at the time realise you are looking for exactly 'beginning' instead of 'foundation'. In the future, by all means, run your latin text through me, I've time to check it if you wish :)

[Jasper]

Those are good points Eero.  I think I'm leaning heavily towards an integrated presentation.  What I'm really trying to achieve, in general, is the creation of a game in the late classical world that covers certain themes.  Why?  So I can play it!   Secondarily, I'd like to give other people who are interested in similar things a fun game to play, and maybe make a small name for myself and/or a few bucks.  (Might as well be honest right?  a big part of putting anything online is the ego boost.)  

As you say, isolated systems are just hard to advertise, partly because there already are so many.  I like them personally, so perhaps I'll write this game with the ol' "powered by impetus" slogan, and make a clean write-up of just the rules also available, for those who want it.  Everyone wins then, right?

Still considering, but your comments have helped a lot.


As for the title, many thanks for the suggestions.  I was in fact aware that "principium" also means foundation, and that that's what most people would probably associate it with.  But that's okay, since the game is about creating a new civilization -- that's both a beginning and a foundation.  I had also pondered "initium" for a long time, but decided that I just don't like how it sounds for a title.  Of course, "principium" is pretty long, so maybe not ideal either.  I'm not wed to anything at this point, I just needed a working title.  

"Orsus Novellus" rolls off the tongue nicely, but most people will probably say "Orsus?  What the hell is that?"  I have to walk the line between the title sounding like it indeed belongs to a foreign age, and keeping it familiar enough that people might have some sense of what it means.   Maybe "Pax Novellus"?  Gets across the idea of (a) a peace other than the Roman one, (b) lack of peace and an effort to establish it, and (c) strangeness.  Hmm....   I'll PM you if I have any urgent grammar questions  :)