My RPG is too wierd for most people to grasp

[Palaskar]

Ok, I have a homebrew RPG I like (Signature.) But it's too wierd for most people to grasp -- for example, there is only one kind of statistic (Traits). No attributes, no skills, no advantages, no disadvantages...just Traits. There are also virtually no counters -- Traits are rated 1 to 3 normally, plus a number indicating Scale (think Powergame.) So there's no spell points, no hit points, and yes, no experience points. And so on. Granted, it's not too weird for most people here on The Forge, but elsewhere...well....

In other words, when people read it they tend to have one of three reactions:

1) This game is great! It's just like Game X (often Heroquest.) It would be great for (heroic, epic play.)

2) I don't have the words to describe this game! It's great!

3) I don't have the words to describe this game! It's awful!

Granted, as Ash has pointed out, a lot of this has been due to the confusing writing of the game. Still, two out of the three buyers of the game have written back to me to tell me just how great it is.

So I'm asking the game designers here, how do I solve problem 3? I'm currently trying to give people the option of using more familiar mechanics such as d20 resolution and levels, for example.

[TonyLB]

What does your game do that other games do not?

Does it do it well?

[Eero Tuovinen]

So I'm asking the game designers here, how do I solve problem 3? I'm currently trying to give people the option of using more familiar mechanics such as d20 resolution and levels, for example.

In all friendliness, do you really have your head screwed on straight here? I mean, is your goal really to have everybody everywhere, ever liking your game? Because that's how your post reads to me.

One pretty common dictum about small-press / indie games is that you shouldn't try for wide-base gamer appeal, because that's what the big guns are doing, and they can do it much better than you can. Rather, you should find your own well-defined target audience, and make a game for them. In global terms even tiny percentages of gamer population can still make for a successful product, if you can make a game they all want. Low costs, comparatively huge profit margins on single sales and an unique product has without exception been the recipe for indie success. Sure, D&D sells thousandfold more, but you make more per sale, and sell something nobody can make D&D do. In that situation it's completely irrelevant what D&D fans, for instance, say about your game. They simply aren't your target audience.

So, my answer: you don't have a problem. Or if you do have one, then your game isn't serving it's intended audience in the first place. Not much to do but start the design from scratch in that case. But if there's people who think your game is great, then the chances are that those people are your audience. You can't make everybody happy, because people want different things. Comprende?

[Palaskar]

Well, it's a genric system that (in my opinion anyway) does a better, quicker, and easier job of modeling settings than any other game out there. Let me cut-and-paste my post from rpg.net:

[...] I arrived at a simple 1-3 rating for my Traits, essentially corresponding to Beginner, Expert and Master. 0 corresponds to Untrained or Average, which is what everyone has.

Some important points here:
-There are no "negative" Traits. For example, Hard of Hearing 3 can be used to resist Sonic Attack 2.
-Everyone comes with the 'default' equipment to accompany their Trait. For example a Viking 2 will have an axe, a horned helmet, a shield, and some sort of armor.

To handle greater and lesser amounts of power, I used a Scale mechanic. Each level of Scale adds or subtracts 3. So you have +3, +6, +9, or -3, -6, -9 and so on. For more on the idea of Scale, do a web search for 'Powergame.'

To handle the problem of predictability, I introduced Wild Points. Wild Points are points that can be spent to add to the rating of a Trait for a single action. One neat thing about Wild Points is that the amount of Wild Points and how many you can spend at a time varys by genre. So in a gritty dark fantasy setting you get fewer and can spend less Wild Points then in a wild epic Wuxia fantasy setting.

Wild Points can also do a number of other things, like introducing complications, or new Traits (even including new characters!) and other good stuff.

Normally, Wild Points regenrate after the end of each adventure (if I remember the rules correctly) but if you spend them on things that are not boosting Traits, they do not regenerate.

To make the player conform to the genre and tone of the setting, I introduced Bonus Behavior. Basically, the PCs get a bonus to any behavior that is in line with the setting. Use tactics in a grim and gritty setting? Bonus! Use tactics in a over-the-top wuxia setting? Probably no bonus!

There's even more in Signature, but I don't want to give away the farm, so to speak. Please cite me as an influence if you use these mechanics.
-----
Signature is also highly customizable due to the fact that it was designed to model settings well and quickly. So you can go from gritty fantasy to high fantasy in a snap, for example. You also have a number of chargen methods. And so on.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I hope you understand that every single feature you've listed is already available in a number of published games.

I think you might do well to consider that if your game works well, and if there are people who enjoy it, then you are in great shape and have no problem.

Best,
Ron

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I hope you understand that every single feature you've listed is already available in a number of published games.

I know! I was reading that and thinking "He's been reading my notes on the TSOY revision."

Seriously, though - if even half the people you tell about your game like it, you are so golden. A healthy amount of people who hate it mean you're doing something right.

I can't find it now, but someone on RPG.net once said that there was nothing romantic about TSOY's setting except that it resembled "the teenage wet dreams of the author." That's hate, and it's honestly my favorite thing anyone's ever said about the game.

[Palaskar]

Ok, this is really, really, REALLY encouraging.

Now I'm wondering, should I revise my game, or not? I'm leaning towards 'not', because I got really good reviews. On the other hand, the writing -is- quite confusing now that I look at it again.

See, it's all Forge theory. 84 pages of it, beginning with explict Social Contract, moving to G/N/S, then going to basic mechanics, and ending with Techniques.

I could easily explain the game without using these terms. Frex, have a conventional GM section, plus add-ons for Forge variations; then basic mechanics; and finally, options including G/N/S and Techniques.

What do you think?

[Alan]

I think it's fine to use theory as an organizing principle, but I think you'll get better responses from several fronts if you just present "how to play" in the simplest terms you can.  RPG newcomers will not be intimidated and RPG old hands won't find their illusions challenged.

Unless of course, you want to teach or challenge illusions.  Your choice.