Fantasy setting, probably not good enough :)

[Christoffer Lernö]

Perhaps abandon the implicit character classes.

Ok, this is more a design issue, but anyway:

I started out with a free character creation ("buy what skills you want from these points").

But I eventurally discovered that wouldn't really give me the characters appropriate for the world. Even I had a difficulty making nice characters that way.

So I decided on skill packages for "professions" so you'd have a few skills you had to take, some you could chose from within a range of options and finally some completely free.

But that still would involve a lot of looking through skill lists (always a problem for first time players).

Next thing I was designing character classes without skills, but "talent picks"

Then I discovered I didn't really want to make 1 million different classes even though I managed to give them cool names.

So I ended up reducing it AD&D style to a few classes (7 to be exact) each with their specific talent profile. Yeah, really AD&D, but that's not where I started. It's where I ended up because I wanted to let players make characters which fit into the setting. And I wanted to make it easy.

There's no need for artificial prohibitions on magic use.

There are no prohibitions at all. Everyone can be a mage and there are no AD&D style restrictions on armour and stuff. The only thing is that I provide a framework within which you construct your character.
AD&D does this not only for convenience but also to enforce game balance.

In my game the latter is never enforced within the game system.

Or to be more specific:

Let's say you "make a magician" that means your character will start with spells and such abilities and won't be good at fighting TO START WITH. After that you may learn whatever you want, including fighting efficiently, using the bow like an archer and so on.

Other way around works too. The only thing is that when you create a character you start with one type. There are no other effects than limiting the initial selection of talents (read: skills).

[contracycle]

Anyone making a game without these races, or adding some will have people ask "why did they leave out/add xxxxx?"

a) Would they?
b) So what?

I guess it's a personal decision. I chose mine to avoid the Tolkien heritage and borrow a little from norse mythology and a little from anime interpretations of fantasy.

No, what you've got is some clearly Tolkien derivative "races".

[Christoffer Lernö]

Anyone making a game without these races, or adding some will have people ask "why did they leave out/add xxxxx?"

a) Would they?
b) So what?

a) possibly

b) I'm trying to make a game to appeal to the standard fantasy crowd. I have lots of ideas for things you could do with fantasy, that's not the problem.
What I'm trying to do is to put as many new things into the setting without deviating from a basic fantasy feeling.

I want my game to be an alternative for people wanting the standard fantasy fare.

Everyone's concerned that I'm going too AD&D, but to be honest - do I make it more successful just by making it very different from standard fantasy?

I don't think so.

Because if I'm doing a derivative with a radically different emphasis I'm basically letting my ideas run wild to make my own special brand of fantasy. If others will like that is a matter of how much my taste coincides with the average player.

Maybe it helps if I'm telling you I want to make a Swedish version. The number of fantasy games in Swedish are few, and "standard fantasy" are even fewer: there are two commercial ones that I am aware of, one is totally the opposite of what I want to do - rules heavy, simlationist with a very complex and detailed world, the other is the 6th ed of the first (and for a long time the only) Swedish fantasy rpg... since it's very different from its predecessors the future will show how well it'll turn out.

With that in mind, a well written fantasy rpg seems to actually have a chance to evoke some interest (although I'm not counting on making any money :) ).

[Christoffer Lernö]

No, I'm not making a world where there are parties of thief/mage/warrior/priest. I'm just trying to make a fantasy world and then make a system which contains everything without instutionalizing stuff in the rule system.

AD&D is a gamist system from beginning to finish. Every thing is balanced, four different classes with progressively less fighting ability but more advanced non-fighting abilities. Naturally a party has to involve all classes to be complete. From a wargaming point of view it makes perfect sense.

But I'm not working from a wargaming point of view. Not even an AD&D point of view. I'm working from the idea of a very visually exciting place which just happen to be archetypal fantasy. I got magic, I got elves and stuff. It's mainstream, but it's not an AD&D clone. It's not war-game style balanced thing, it's not "gotta have all classes in the optimal party" game,  it's not related to AD&D in any way yadda yadda how can I prove it to you guys before I rip my hair out? :D

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Whoa, folks, we're frustrating the guy ...

Here are a couple of points to consider, maybe.

(1) AD&D is perhaps more Simulationist than you're perceiving, especially if we're talking about all the permutations of Second Edition. I agree with you about the early D&D being Gamist primarily (although I think it's more incoherent than you imply, in some ways). However, I think that the DM Guide pretty much began a big Sim Swing that kept going until D&D3E came out, representing a sudden Swing Back to Gamism.

So therefore, a lot of people's reference to "D&D Fantasy" in a "explore this world" sense is valid - they are referencing the D&D experience from 1985 through 1995, things like Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, as well as a generic "what a fantasy world is like" that was defined throughout gaming culture via their experiences with D&D of any stripe following 1980. By the mid-80s, very few groups over the age of 16 were playing dungeon crawls - they were exploring worlds and building fictional histories and all that sort of thing. (This is where all that appalling babble currently passing for "fantasy fiction," e.g. Jordan, Friedman, Eddings, Fiest, et al., comes from, as I'm sure you know.)

(2) Now for my next question: it seems to me that we already have tons of RPGs which have accomplished the goal you stated in this thread (which is not the goal of the other thread, right?). RuneQuest, to start with. Earthdawn, Warhammer, Harnmaster, some of those Fantasy Heartbreakers I mentioned, and more ... given that you want "familiar" gaming fantasy that is simply "interesting" on its own hook due to some new details, what's missing in any of these?

And if producing something like these is your goal, basically moving on a potential market (and who can fault you for that? not I), then what question is possible for discussion? It would seem like the easiest thing in the world - nearly anyone with organizational skills can get a neat map, a few cool and colorful races, a solid 30 pages of back-history for the setting, and a standard character creation system together. Considering that the basic template is already with us, and that you are confident that your personal touch will generate enough reader-interest, it seems like no real question for discussion exists.

(3) Finally, I agree with Gareth (contracycle) that trying to wed "derivative" or "familiar" to "radically different emphasis" seems like a contradiction. In all of the above games, they try, but instead of a different emphasis, we get different details. Perhaps you could clarify for me, exactly, what you mean by a "radically different emphasis." Are you talking about details of the setting? Or is this a matter of mechanics like the reward system?

Best,
Ron

[Christoffer Lernö]

(2) Now for my next question: it seems to me that we already have tons of RPGs which have accomplished the goal you stated in this thread (which is not the goal of the other thread, right?). RuneQuest, to start with. Earthdawn, Warhammer, Harnmaster, some of those Fantasy Heartbreakers I mentioned, and more ... given that you want "familiar" gaming fantasy that is simply "interesting" on its own hook due to some new details, what's missing in any of these?

Now I'm a little confused but I think this is the thread about my setting. :)

There are neat fantasy games out there but not the brand of standard fantasy I want I guess. :D

No, but seriously. I do have something new to offer, but how much and what depends a little on what you're comparing it to. I'm just trying to offer my own take on fantasy and RPGs, and I hope it comes out a little better than the average fare.

I want what everybody else wants I guess:

* a good system (which means different things to different people though)
* a nice and interesting world
* and the possibility to play really neat adventures in that world

(3) Finally, I agree with Gareth (contracycle) that trying to wed "derivative" or "familiar" to "radically different emphasis" seems like a contradiction. Are you talking about details of the setting? Or is this a matter of mechanics like the reward system?

I'm talking about the details of the setting strangely enough. ;)