Is this a good or foolish idea in presenting a new game?

[JimLotFP]

Either toss out what you have and start over on the Flaming Princess concept -- why not tap that emotion? Or toss the flaming pretensions and really dig into the game that you have in front of you.

The whole deal about the Flame Princess in my reply above... it's not anything in a game. It was just background information that I gave because it was asked for. I used the name for 5 years doing a music publication before I ever decided to do an RPG. I like consistency and I already had all the screen names and a T-shirt. heh.

So then the other option is, 'dig into the game that you have in front of you'. Fair enough.

I only scanned the combat mechanics you provided, but they didn't grab me. Nothing original, and nothing to do with a theme or core concept.

The basic combat resolution was the first thing conceived for the game. In fact, it was working that out in its earliest form that made me think there could be a system here. The idea was 'the combat mechanic really doesn't need to be any more involved than a mechanic to jump a chasm or tending to a farm.' It couldn't stay that simple and neutral, but that was the idea.

If I were you, and I'm not, i'd take the lack of playtest feedback as a sign and go back to the drawing board.

Problem is the feedback is telling me there's no 'hook', which is intentional. It doesn't tell me the system itself is broken, that this works but this doesn't work. 'Back to the drawing board' seems like it would be slapping a superficial coat of paint on it, a 'hook', just to come right back to this same point of trying to figure out if everything does what I want it to do: produce logical results. Not dramatic, exciting, spiffy, awesome, inspiring effects... but logical results. If you plug the rules into a situation and the results seem illogical, then to me it's broke. But that sort of testing isn't something I can do with my style of play (it was working fine over a few months of regular sessions before I moved away from my normal group, still haven't found Kissimmee area gamers...) any more than I can decide to be my own copy editor when it gets to the final stages down the road to go to the printer.

People are telling me what the thing as-written is not doing, fair enough, but also nobody's telling me what I want to know about what is already there.

I have a revision a few days away from being ready, it includes a load of designer notes. What say you guys to the validity of putting that up, and also a few scenario ideas up alongside it, but not part of the document itself? The system will be bare, as I envision it, but then the 'give the people who might want to play it something to DO' would also be satisfied. Maybe have a half dozen of those that are all different in theme/tone/activities and that'll help determine what this engine can do and what it can't? Solid idea as a next step?

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Jim.

I read over your LotFP FAQ. Your core concepts seem to be "inexpensive" and "ease-of-use." Since you seem committed to putting money behind this game and publishing it in print, I gotta tell you that these are core concepts that you cannot succeed with. Why? Because in order to convince a customer to make a purchase, you have to convince them that this is the best option for their gaming dollars (including the option not to buy anything).

Using low cost as a selling point won't help because you can't beat FUDGE and Risus and dozens of other games for cost: They're free. You also cannot beat every other game already on  the customer's shelf. They're effectively free because the customer has already bought them.

As for ease-of-use, Risus is pretty darn simple. So is Pocket Universe, FUDGE, and dozens and dozens of other "generic" games. Plus, you're still competing with the games they've got on their shelves because they already know how to play them. Your learning curve may be low, but the game they've played for years has no learning curve at all, because they've already mastered it.

You brag that LotFP "Doesn't sing and doesn't dance." Why not? I mean, games are entertainment products. If your game isn't entertaining, why should I play it? You say "I've stripped the game down to just the engine" and I hear "I've consciously tried to make my game dull. You'll have to provide the fun yourself, that's what a referee and players do." I appreciate your desire to empower gamers to do their own thing, we're already doing our own thing without LotFP.

Since you're obviously selling to established gamers, you have to take into consideration what they already have. Read Robin Laws' Pitches and Misses for tips on "unique reasons for being."

FWIW, you obviously have passion for RPGs. I want to *see* that passion in your game. I think your "Rescue the princess on infinite worlds" idea is tremendously cool. I want to feel the desperate striving to save her this time, only to experience the tragedy of losing her again. That game is a game I don't already have on my shelves and that I can't download for free online. That's a game I'd buy.

On the other hand, you also say that the LotFP core rules work just perfectly for the way you game. Then write out *how* you game. I don't mean "I game like everybody else, except I consult these special charts." What I mean is stuff like: How do you handle character creation? Does the GM say "we'll be playing in this setting, and all your characters need to be member os the noble court" or is it "bring anything you think is cool to the table"? Does that affect the upcoming Situation? How does that get established? Do playes create their characters alone, or as a group? Are you allowed to comment on others' characters? Are secrets allowed? Are there any kind of handouts? What's on them? Is there "required reading" before the game? What requirements for playing do you make and why?

In play, the system tells you what happens, but who describes how it happens? Do yu require folks to speak in character? Is note passing encouraged or forbidden? I'll bet you have great techniques honed over years of play that you take for granted as the stuff that "everybody does" that people would love to hear about. They'd make great game mechanics.

I guess we're coming at this from two opposed schools of thought. You think that RPGs should be creatively neutral. I don't think they can creatively neutral, so we waste our effort trying. Instead of trying for neutrality, we should be flaunting our individuality. Otherwise, what are we really selling?

[Luke]

Hi Jim,

Let me rephrase a bit of what I was saying:

Regarding your mechanics; I'll bet they work fine. I'll bet they are rolled, added and subtracted and produce very near the results you want them to.

But they are only combat mechanics. Ok, I want to convince the Fire Princess not to immolate herself. How do I do it? What benefit to I gain from it? How does that change the next scene?

And then there's your introduction:

There are also no equipment lists, weapon lists, or a system
standard for money. Again, that's an individual setting and
campaign issue, not something to be hard-written into the rules.
To do so would make the toys, gadgets, and wealth a function and
goal of the game, as well as make assumptions as to what sort of
flavor an LotFP:RPG game should have. If that's important for
you in a game, nothing is stopping a GM from generating
equipment details to their taste, or even using one from another
game. If such things are not important in your game, then it's not
in your way and not taking up space in your rulebook. Once
again, it's your game, these are just rules.
This book does not contain a magic system. Because magic does
not exist in the real world, there is no way to make a
comprehensive, intuitive system out of it. It is a false assumption
that magic is necessary for an adventure RPG. An optional
supplement detailing a magic system will be released as a separate
product.
There are no descriptions of 'races' in this book. Elves, dwarves,
whatever, are functions of setting and plot, not game mechanics.
The GM and players should together determine what races will be
allowed in their particular game, and come up with ways to define
that character within the system. This game will not pigeonhole
itself as a Tolkien homage/ripoff, nor try and be an avant-garde
game by denying Tolkienisms. You make that decision. It's your
game to play.
It is important to note that the GM is responsible for the details
game world, and all that is in it. If the GM does not want certain
technology available (such as firearms), even if there are rules for
that technology, then it is not available. Period. Certain skills
assume certain levels of cultural sophistication, and the GM is
free to wipe all of that out as well if certain institutions are not
present in his game world. Period. Such rules are included to
provide as many possible avenues of challenge and adventure as
possible, but are not meant to force a GM to accept cannons in
ancient Rome or financial markets in the Dark Ages, for example.
The GM is free to modify, replace, or remove any and all rules in
this book if he finds them lacking. If there's a situation not
covered in the rules, the GM is free to just make something up.
Just be sure to inform players of changes... and let us here at
LotFP: RPG headquarters know about the deficiency so we can
take a look at it as well.

It's a bit off-putting. Do you have equipment creation rules? Do you have a modular rules mechanic? Do you have a color mechanic for the fantasy races? (I admit that I found the lack of character stock variation pretty dismaying). Are there any rules governing the autocratic powers you bestow upon the GM in this paragraph?

Jim, I've been there. I've written this introduction myself. And I'll tell ya, it's the sign of clashing design concepts in the designer's head. You're starting off your game, yelling at your reader, belaboring the points which your game does not or won't handle. You have immediately and instantly given every gamer outside your immediate  personal influence a reason not to play your game. They're a sensitive bunch, gamers. They HATE being told their favorite game is shite and yours is better. However true that may be, you've got to drop this attitude. You've got to rethink your game in terms of what is good, what it does.

And an obvious "pigeonhole" from the GM's standpoint: Why use your game when I have to do all design work myself?

Btw, to many of us

it's your game, these are just rules

this statement is a red flag. My game, The Burning Wheel, is a setting-less system, too. But you better believe it's a full-fledged game. It does everything a setting'ed game does and a whole lot more. Your game should too.

To end on a positive note: I was pleasantly surprised to find a GM/Player Responsibilities section in the rules. This is a ray of hope! Only just now -- in the past few months -- have I realized the utter necessity for such a thing. The fact that you've got it in your alpha rules is great. More advice like this -- on how to play your game your way -- is what you need.

good luck,
-Luke

[KeithBVaughn]

Hi Jim,

It sounds like you have got a series of internested novelettes in mind to make up a book, not a game. You may do well to read Jack Vance's: "The Dying Earth" to see a master doing this type of bookand go on to write your's.

Right now, you are getting feedback, you don't like it and you're blowing it off.  Are you looking for feedback--or affirmation?

In about two weeks I'll be putting up an article called: Science Fiction Heartbreakers.  At the end of it I'll have my own story of "Embers of Empire: SFRPG." What you're trying to do echos my own failed attempt for my first game.

Keith

[GaryTP]

Jim,

I tend to agree with Michael on this. But want to add a few things. You have a passion of this, so make the feedback you're getting work for you. The thing that I'm missing is distinct and its incomplete. What is the point of difference in your game that will make me pick it up? Playtesters will play the game if its all there and says something to them. You won't get a lot of people just testing a system. Lack of people playtesting (or excited about playtesting) is the first indicator something is not clicking for them.

I've gotten some great (and harsh) feedback over the years on my own creations. But I'm most grateful for the tough feedback... it is what helps a concept grow. There are so many rpg products out in the market place. More of the same ends up becoming white noise. Don't let the excitement or rush of getting your own game out there keep the game from being developed to the full extent you need it to be.

I hope you continue to develop your game.

Gary

[JimLotFP]

Right now, you are getting feedback, you don't like it and you're blowing it off.  Are you looking for feedback--or affirmation?

Well both of course. But to say I'm 'blowing off' feedback is not correct. There are problems. OK, they need to be tackled, I need to take a look at it. There needs to be more development in the 'game', not just 'mechanics', before this ever becomes something I should invest in a print run or expect people to pay money for it. How that gels with my concepts for what I want this to be is something I need to dig into and evaluate.

I got that point.

But some of the feedback blows off what I want to know:

Regarding your mechanics; I'll bet they work fine. I'll bet they are rolled, added and subtracted and produce very near the results you want them to.

I don't have this kind of confidence. And without knowing that it 'works' when the play environment is completely unconnected to me, I don't know what real work I can add on top of it. It is a fundamental belief to me for a 'working' RPG rules set is able to handle a normal every day person doing normal every day things and produce probable results most of the time, before adding anything else on top of it. I'm uncomfortable taking additional steps at this point.

And about some other comments:

I mean, games are entertainment products.

I think of them more as hammers, wrenches, and screwdrivers. Movies are entertainment products. CDs are entertainment products. Novels are entertainment products. They are what they are and you accept them or not. RPGs are tools. They don't do anything on their own.

You'll have to provide the fun yourself, that's what a referee and players do.

I believe this to be true no matter what RPG is being used. Doesn't mean I don't need to spice up my efforts of course, but no matter what I do it's just going to be a stack of paper in the end without *play*.

[Michael S. Miller]

I mean, games are entertainment products.

I think of them more as hammers, wrenches, and screwdrivers. Movies are entertainment products. CDs are entertainment products. Novels are entertainment products. They are what they are and you accept them or not. RPGs are tools. They don't do anything on their own.

So I can fix my car using my RPG library? ;)

Seriously, a movie doesn't become "entertainment" until you watch it. That's just the same as an RPG not becoming "entertainment" until you play it. A screwdriver is a tool because, when I use it, screws get driven. That's what it's *for*. An RPG is a game because, when I play it, I have fun.

Besides, just looking at facts, your potential customers consider RPGs to be entertainment products. Their money for your game is going to mean them delaying a purchase of a CD, or a movie, or (most likely) another RPG, rather than delaying a trip to the hardware store.

I just want to re-emphasize what I said in my earlier post about your "Low Cost Simplicity" goals for this game. RPG publishing is a very tough field. You don't want to put out a product that you already know cannot possibly be the *best* in at least one unique way. For a genre-less system like you're proposing, your main competition seems to me to be FUDGE and Risus. Both are free which beats you in the "low-cost" field. And both are already second-nature to thousands of gamers, which beats you in the "simplicity" field. Bring something unique to the table and you've got a shot.