2nd Editions: How far to go?

[Malcolm Craig]

Just throwing the door open to opinion on this one.

Recently, I've had something of a change of heart when it comes to games design (I was going to say I had an epiphany, but that would probably be taking it a bit far). Prior to this, I very much divided system and setting into two seperate wholes. Nowadays (as the result of conversations regard the setting/system integration of the current edition of a|state), I have come to realise that in order to further story of the game, to make the game more playable and to rectify many of the flaws inherent in the first edition, a radical revision of both the system and the manner in which the book is presented is required.

In essence, this means scrapping the current system and starting from the ground up to build one which integrates on a more fundamental level with the setting, provides reasons for the characters to be together and so forth. I realise this is old hat to many Forgites, but it's something that's only really struck me in recent months. I came to realise that my way of running games (almost totally ignoring any system, etc) and my prior "who cares about system?" attitude had most likely had an adverse affect on the way a|state was presented and systematised. There are flaws in the game,  in setting, system and presentation, flaws which I am very keen to rectify for the future.

Where was I?

Oh yes...

Anyway, this putative revision/2nd edition is not likely to appear in the near future, but I am already starting to think about it in order to give my thoughts time to mature and gestate. I was just looking for opinions on various aspects of releasing a second edition of an existing game line. I'm mainly concerned with things like does totally changing the system risk alienating a substantial portion of the existing fanbase? Is there a 'reasonable' timescale for bring out a second edition (i.e.: the gap between the release of a 1st ed and the release of a 2nd ed)? Just fairly simple (I think) questions that have been in my head, but would appreciate others opinions on.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Malcolm.

I'm mainly concerned with things like does totally changing the system risk alienating a substantial portion of the existing fanbase?

Maybe? Changing the system drastically is going to alienate some players, no matter what. The question is how many? Two quick personal examples.

AEG has a game called Legend of the Five Rings, it's a Samurai game. A while ago they started to make all their books with two system information; D20 and  their original d10 system. This isn't a drastic game change as the orginal stats were there, however it was a somewhat substanial change. Previous to the change I bought every book they put out, after the change I was very choosy about buying any of their products. I have a friend who also bought all their products, after the change he bought nothing. What changed for us? We didn't like feeling we were paying for only half the pages of a book, as d20, in our mind, was vastly inferior to AEG's original system. D20 has it's own strength's it just doesn't work well for the setting. Anyway, I'm  starting to get off topic. AEG must have been getting the same feedback from other people as they recently ditched the d20 part and put out a 3rd edition, which I bought.

Changing very little can also be a problem. I used to buy alot of White Wolf stuff. White Wolf would make new "editions" of a game that for the life of me, I couldn't find  the changes, besides new fiction blurbs and art. This alienated me from them somewhat.

I think the main question your customers are going to ask is, "How does this help me, and are there enough changes to justify me buying a game I already own?" If your new revision makes the game run better, fixs frustrating annoyances, or adds to the flavor of the setting... I don't think you have much to worry about.

Is there a 'reasonable' timescale for bring out a second edition (i.e.: the gap between the release of a 1st ed and the release of a 2nd ed)?

I think the answer to this is going to be directly proportional to the price of your game. If I paid 50 dollars I'm not likely to purchase a new edition a year later. If I paid ten dollars then a new edition a year later would be no big deal.

[Justin Marx]

Mechwarrior 3 took a great and workable system (Mechwarrior 2, 2d6 for everything) and butchered it with over-elaboration. I think their design philosophy was to expand on the limitations of the 2d6 system and to incorporate more setting material by making the rules increasingly more technical and situation-specific - IMHO, it was the malleability of the MW2 that was its strength.

I suppose it can go both ways. If the premise is good but the details relatively extraneous, putting too much of the setting into system (which makes it virtually immutable) may reduce the broader popularity of the game with groups who like to play it their way.

[Matt Machell]

From a pure cynicism point of view, I'd say that if you've built a decent community up around your game, people will buy a 2nd (or revised, or a reimagining) edition just cos.

If it'll work is a judgement call only you can make really, you know your game and its following best. We can only provide data points (X and Y did it, and nobody noticed!) or opinion (I 'd buy it! I wouldn't!).

The question I'd ask is: "Why do people like A-State?". If the answer is the neat setting, then you can probably get away with revising the system with impunity. People will always play 1st edition rules if they liked it more anyway.

If you're lucky, changing the system will bring in more or different people...


-Matt

[Eero Tuovinen]

Change your thinking. The worries about doing changes to game systems and the resulting internet flame wars between rapid fans of old and new systems are a peculiarity of the rpg nerd culture, and have no bearing to rpgs as art, product or entertainment. Consider:
- "When I buy a roleplaying product, I buy into a lineage and subculture as well, committing my identity forevermore to the game line."
- "New publications diminish the worth of stuff I've already bought, so I have to protect my investment by buying current editions and keeping current with the game line I play."
- "So called 'support' is an inseparable part of my rpg hobby; I cannot play a game if no new books are published for it, even if the old books are complete products."
Are these reasonable opinions on the matter? Why? Are they common? Should they be? Are they in any way relevant for roleplaying as art, product or entertainment? Are they relevant to a company not in the supplement business?

It should be evident that the fan culture requirements of
a) constant support in the form of new releases
b) not undermining old stuff by changing anything
are unavoidably in conflict with each other. The only way to fulfill both is to constantly widen the scope of the game line, making it not a game, but rather an universe of games. Like any WW lines, or D&D, for instance. Furthermore, those expectations and business model only apply to mainstream companies that are ready and willing to play by those rules. A company that does not publish six supplements a year needs not worry a whit about that kind of fan priorities.

Alternate thought: roleplaying games and other books are always solitary products embedded in time. A customer does not buy future promises or guaranteed years of topicality. He buys the content of the book, not membership in a cult or a club. The publisher promises a game that is useful and fun and worth the price, and nothing more. He has no responsibility to investor-fans of old when making new products; those fans got their money's worth when they bought the old book. Any other claims are just products of frustation in the supplement cycle, caused by collector's anxiety and lots of hypothetical play.

So, in this context, what does making a second edition mean? It means exactly the same as making a completely new game. What else could it mean? "I can't publish this, because the old customers will feel betrayed." "I can't publish this, because the old customers won't buy it." So what are you gonna do? Wait until the old edition is forgotten, or make it a worse game so the old edition will still feel useful? Whatever.

For example, our household god of second editions, Luke Crane: Burning Wheel 2nd edition is, from what I hear, a very different game. And it came out pretty soon after the first one. It completely trumps the first edition, actually. Gaming police didn't go and burn the old books from people's bookshelfs (I know, I still have it), but if old fans want to play the new version, they have to buy it, just like everybody else. And that is good, because that means it's a better game. Not a rewarming of the old game, but a new take on the same concepts.

So, my concrete advice: make the best game you can. If you think that the market is already saturated (that is, most potential customers already have the old version), then don't make a second edition at all, but rather an alternative rule-book. If the market's pretty much half and half, you could maybe do both, selling the rules-update to the old customers who then won't need to buy the setting fluff twice. Make your decision based on
- what you want to do as a designer
- what will sell
- what will make for better games for customers.
and your happiness is assured. Questions about timescale or alienating the existing fan-base are simply irrelevant. Companies that spend much thinking-power on these same questions have not managed a whit better showing in their new editions. Go to RPGnet and read about, for example, Exalted 2nd edition to get a feel for how unreasonable or reasonable fans can be. You'll just end up making a worse game if you try to dance to their tune.

[Malcolm Craig]

Firstly, thanks very much for your considered replies. It's certainly given me a lot of food for thought.

To address some specific issues:

In terms of timescale, the game has now been on release for 18 months and I wouldn't imagine release a new edition for at least another 18. Primarily this comes down to resources and time.

The game has, taking my subjective view, sold mainly to those interested in the setting, rather than for any reasons related to the system. Indeed, one of the main flaws of the game is, in the eyes of some who have expressed an interest or who have purchased the game, the system itself.

By doing a second edition, my objectives would be threefold:

1) Provide a system which ties in more closely with the setting itself and gives a greater flavour for the setting. One element of this is using the places in The City that people come from having a greater effect on the character, rather than simply the place they come from providing certain skills during character creation (this is just one small part of it, but one which was foremost in my mind).

2) Provide a greater 'focus' for the game itself. At the moment, the game is fiarly 'open' and doesn't really provide a great deal of direction for GMs and players in how to actually play in the world. Once comment which has been leveled at the game is that many of the iconic character types are, by their very nature, loners. This leads to the problem of how to bring together a group of these people without railroading or shoehorning. Tied in to this is the theme of hope within the setting. Hope (the provision of to others) is very important to the game, but the game as it currently stands does not give a whole lot of direction as to the use of hope, how to create it and how to reflect it within the game. Whether it is integrated into the system, or given greater direction through a more metagame level, I'd like to make more use of, and provide people with more advice on, the use of loners as PCs (and how to bring them together, give them reasons to be together, etc) and the element of hope within the game.

3) Resolve some setting and production issues, making it easier for people to get in to the setting, understand the basic concepts and familiarise themselves with the world. At the moment, the book just dives straight in to the setting and I'd very much like to make it easier to get to grips with.

Anyway, thats my thoughts so far and thanks for your feedback.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Luke]

Malcolm, speaking from recent experience, revising my game was one of the most painful experiences I have encountered as an author. It quite literally hurt me.

Why? Because a major revision takes an idea that you once thought was dandy and trashes it. It's like kicking yourself in the teeth repeatedly.

It took me just as much work to revise my game as to write it. Possibly even a bit more since I was aware of my shortcomings and some of the pitfalls and I worked hard to overcome them.

And I found another subcutaneous level of pain in revising. About midway through the project, I hit the wall of doubt and fear. I second guessed myself. Why was I doing this? All the energy I was dumping into this could be going to a new game, an intrinsically better game. That hurt.

Perhaps it won't be as hard for you as it was for me. But if you do decide that revising is what you want, always, always do what is right for the game. As the designer, only you know exactly what that is. Never listen to your fans or your neigh-sayers. It's only the voice in your head that counts. Because at the end of the day you're the one who has to stand up next to your work and take credit for it, good or bad. Not your fans or your detractors, you.

good luck and welcome.
-Luke

PS Also, find a good editor if you can. I stumbled onto my editor, Thor, at a convention a year and a half ago, and I owe him much of the credit for helping me keep my vision focused.

[Keith Senkowski]

Luke,

Wow.  I had the exact opposite feeling with the revision of CoS.  I found it refreshing cause I was making the game I really wanted based upon further exposure to other really cool games.  Sure I went throught the self-doubt phase, but on a whole it was liberating cause I had already done the hard part by getting it done the first time.  This time around I didn't have that monkey looming over my shoulders.

Keith

[Malcolm Craig]

Perhaps it won't be as hard for you as it was for me. But if you do decide that revising is what you want, always, always do what is right for the game. As the designer, only you know exactly what that is. Never listen to your fans or your neigh-sayers. It's only the voice in your head that counts. Because at the end of the day you're the one who has to stand up next to your work and take credit for it, good or bad. Not your fans or your detractors, you.

good luck and welcome.
-Luke

Cheers Luke, thanks for your thoughts on this. To be honest, the thing that is really driving this desire to revise the game is me. Since wrisiting a|state, I have experienced a growing level of dis-satisfaction with the games on certain levels (conversely, I'm very proud of it on certain other levels). As you may have noticed from earlier posts, I really do feel that the game experience could be made so much better in many ways and turn the game from a good (well, I think so anyway!) setting and a system which, although functional and up to the task, doesn't really reflect the game itself, into a much more round, well structured and fuller product. I'm having so many ideas that I wish I had had during the writing of the original game that I genuinely feel that there are concrete improvements which could be made.

PS Also, find a good editor if you can. I stumbled onto my editor, Thor, at a convention a year and a half ago, and I owe him much of the credit for helping me keep my vision focused.

This is one thing that we do now have a good hand on. Our current editor, Gregor Hutton (who has come on board during the course of the last year), is professional, knowledgable and skilled. In fact, his full time job is as a Senior Production Editor on a range of prestigious scientific journals, so he brings a wealth of experience to the table. Aside from that, he's also a long time gamer and has been involved many aspects of game design.

Cheers
Malcolm