The Forge Archives

Hello all!

Let me say that this forum would have been a great thing to have 12 years ago when I got into RPGs (and game design). I started working on my own game as soon as I figured out some basic concepts of roleplaying. It has been evolving slowly ever since, and yes, its a fantasy rpg.

Now my approach has perhaps been a bit different, in that I haven't played or studied a great many games off of which my own system was developed. So while some players might have commented "this bit is like game x", I most likely haven't seen game x. My not very broad playing background has been limited to mainly Warhammer FRPG and Palladium, and I have gone over GURPS Fantasy and AD&D. Most of my roleplaying time has been spent gm'ing my game. The reason for designing my own game, is that I knew I didn't like the concepts of D&D (and I couldn't afford buying all kinds of other systems in hopes that they would be more to my liking). I got my own group together (most of whom never played RPGs before or only had very minor exposure).

Fastforward to today. I'm revisting my game, but this time I have great resources on hand, such as the Forge. However, looking at my game I started to worry that it was simply too generic. That many would perhaps easily dismiss it as yet another D&D clone (or a revision of some other system). In effect, I have no obvious gimmick or hook that makes the game standout. So was I wasting my time? Building a game doomed to failure (much like Ron's essay on heartbreak games)? Time to reexamine this whole thing. I have found many interesting discussions here, in particular the ones that Pale Fire has been involved in as he is in the middle of this whole process himself.

First off, what do I want to achieve? I don't care about making money or even publishing this (someday it might make it on the web as a "take it if you want it" game). I'm doing this because a) I enjoy the design process, and b) perhaps I can introduce the game to a new group of players who will enjoy it. So if it does what I want, it can't really fail (or can it?).

Next, what does the game offer? What do the player do? I struggled a bit with this one. My initial response was, "well there is a lot of options, they can be explorers, or slay monsters, or be in a thief campaign. The game is very flexible"...this of course missed the point. I have a very evolved setting (over 10 years worth of effort), and a system that is design to work with it, so I had to look deeper. It was built on the following premise: characters in their own small way try to sway the balance between good and evil.

This still seems a bit vague, and the bit about good vs evil seems rather goofy. But it does capture some important bits. What I need to known is if this is sufficient as a starting descriptor.

The other apect I thought about was the "wow" factor. It comes on two fronts (based on playing the system). In many aspects the game is gritty, low fantasy, but highly magical, wonderous stuff exists. When the two contrasting elements combine, that provides some great moments. The other part is the player's use of the characters and rules. Think of the characters as tools, and utilizing that tool to its maximum effectiveness to create something cool is an important part of the game.

So my questions then. Where should I go from here to critically analyze my design? What should I look for and what other questions do I need to ask myself? Can I avoid the typical "great, another generic fantasy rpg" reaction without trying to distill the game down to a single gimmick?

Sorry for the long message, but I wanted lay down some ground work and give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

Hello, ks13.

Let be the first to say Welcome to The Forge.

From how you describe your game, I believe you're what I would call an amateur designer.  This is different from Independant design, which is what the Forge is about. Not that I'm saying you're not welcome here. Oh heavens, no. I'm just making a distinction. An Amateur designer designs a game with little more abition than to have fun with their own group and that's about it. To me, amateur design is the lifesblood of the hobby. WIthout it, it simply becomes a consumer market. But enough of my soapboxing.

It's a little difficult to tell from what little you have said, but I would say that your game would probably be a "fantasy heartbreaker." First of all, you've mentioned that you haven't played very many games. If you were going to write, say, science fiction, you sould first read as much science fiction as you are able. This way, you will have a better handle on what works, what doesn't, what has become cliched and so on.

Since you haven't played or read (I assume) very many games, I suspect you've hit on several RPG design cliches. Cliches that make people say: "this bit is like game x." In fact, it probably resembles several games, and probably the ones you are most familiar with most closely.

You see, human beings are very imatative. We tend to do things the way we see others doing it with precious little variation. You've gleened from your experiences what you've called "some basic concepts of roleplaying." It bears mentioning here that in the early days of the hobby, after D&D had come out but before any other game did, there were such "basic concepts of roleplaying" as you must roll 3d6 for a character's stats, characters must be defined by a class system, and the game's name must be "(blank) & (blank)" preferably with illiteration.

What I'm trying to point out with this is not that you're game is all that bad, but it may be better. Better for you, that is. I suggest you go to the Forge resource library and check out all of the games there. Take your time. You don't have to read or play them all before dinner, but you need to build up your experience with how different people make their games. Stick to the free games, if money is an issue.

And while you're at it, see if you can figure out what parts of your game you are not happy with. WHat would you like to see work better? WHat part of your game to you dread having to deal with? You don't have to list these things here, but you should list them for yourself so you can identify problem areas and then come up with solutions.

QuoteFirst off, what do I want to achieve? I don't care about making money or even publishing this (someday it might make it on the web as a "take it if you want it" game). I'm doing this because a) I enjoy the design process, and b) perhaps I can introduce the game to a new group of players who will enjoy it. So if it does what I want, it can't really fail (or can it?).

With this goal in mind, you probably can't fail except that you can fail to make the game the most enjoyable experience for yourself and your friends. To thy own self be true. This may mean you'll wind up with a "living" game. As your tastes expand and change, the game will change with you. In this way, the game will never be finished, but this is OK because it is the game that does what you want it to do. And it does, but you make it so.

For  example, if someone shows you the flunky rules from Feng Shui and you like them, you could incorporate them into your game. Later, if you decide you didn't like flunky rules so much after all, out they go.

Do you see now why I say amateur design is the lifesblood of the RPG hobby?

QuoteI have a very evolved setting (over 10 years worth of effort), and a system that is design to work with it, so I had to look deeper. It was built on the following premise: characters in their own small way try to sway the balance between good and evil.

This still seems a bit vague, and the bit about good vs evil seems rather goofy. But it does capture some important bits. What I need to known is if this is sufficient as a starting descriptor.

OK, first of all I've recently gotten a bit of a chip on my shoulder about in-depth settings. I've decided I dislike RPGs that require all that reading to be able to enjoy the game. If you get what I'm saying. This is different for you as it has evolved over ten years and it evolved in play. The thing is, setting is like an long involved in-joke with no punchline. (I should hope a setting has no punchline anyway) The thing to keep in mind is that your world is, well, your world. It appeals to you and your player, but it probably won't to many others simply because it is not their world. Depending on the content of your setting (again, I'm assuming here) many would probably dislike something about your world, for whatever reason, and -Ta Dah- make their own world. Do you think this is what happens in many D&D games? I think so. SO setting is good for you, not really a selling point at all.

Next, I'll bet that you could take d20, GURPS, Hero, Palladium or whatever other system you can find and use it with your setting and it would work just fine. It might take a patch rule or two, but it will still work.

My point here is to address the "system that is designed to work with it" comment. I believe you'd be very hard-pressed to show me anything that could not be done using an existing RPG system in one way or another. I'm not saying you should junk your system and use d20. I am just saying that a particular system does little to emphasize a setting mood or whatever in itself. This is my opinion, and I'm sure several people will disagree with me on this.

Now for you big question: "... characters in their own small way try to sway the balance between good and evil ... What I need to known is if this is sufficient as a starting descriptor."

I'm going to have to say no.This whole idea is fairly cliche. Painfully so, I would say. You could make this better by figuring out how the characters sway this balance and maybe what happens when they sway it. Just a suggestion there.

QuoteThe other apect I thought about was the "wow" factor. It comes on two fronts (based on playing the system). In many aspects the game is gritty, low fantasy, but highly magical, wonderous stuff exists. When the two contrasting elements combine, that provides some great moments. The other part is the player's use of the characters and rules. Think of the characters as tools, and utilizing that tool to its maximum effectiveness to create something cool is an important part of the game.

You're a little vague here.

Terms like "gritty" have become all but meaningless to me from overuse.
Give me an example of a great moment provided by the two contrasting elements.
Give another example of using the character as a tool to its maximum effectiveness to create something cool. What "something cool" means is the important part of this example.

QuoteSo my questions then. Where should I go from here to critically analyze my design? What should I look for and what other questions do I need to ask myself? Can I avoid the typical "great, another generic fantasy rpg" reaction without trying to distill the game down to a single gimmick?

I think I've given you some food for thought above. The best way to avoid the "great, another generic fantasy rpg" reaction is to not show it to anybody.

You see, there are two ways to go about it.

There are those who design RPGs for other groups to play and experience

And those who design RPGs for their own playgroup's experience

As an amateur designer, you're focus is squarely on your own group and you could give a fig if the world knows about it. You are not interested in ever selling your game. I would encourage you to stick with this and avoid the fantasy heartbreak. (future project, who knows) So, you should see what you can learn from other people's games and from places like here on The Forge and then see if they help your group have more fun. If not, drop it. If so, keep it. It's so pure, I envy you like a water buffalo.

Thanks for the detailed replied Jack. Much appreciated.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrHello, ks13.

Let be the first to say Welcome to The Forge.

From how you describe your game, I believe you're what I would call an amateur designer.  This is different from Independant design, which is what the Forge is about.

Hmm, I guess I didn't think about this. So if the Forge is for existing or aspiring publishers only, I might be in the wrong place. Of course my hope was that I could learn something here. Perhaps just to realize to leave everything at an amateur level and be done with it, or perhaps finding something that might be worth pushing further. My point was that I have no illusions of "hitting it big" with some ground breaking rpg design. But that doesn't mean I can't learn anything, especially when it come to being more critical of my own work, and hopefully making improvents.

QuoteSince you haven't played or read (I assume) very many games, I suspect you've hit on several RPG design cliches. Cliches that make people say: "this bit is like game x." In fact, it probably resembles several games, and probably the ones you are most familiar with most closely.

These comparison were during the early "versions" of the game, and they were made in reference to systems I wasn't familiar with, general in reference to some mechanic. How things stand now, I don't know. I'll need to gather new players and see what they say.

QuoteYou see, human beings are very imatative. We tend to do things the way we see others doing it with precious little variation. You've gleened from your experiences what you've called "some basic concepts of roleplaying." It bears mentioning here that in the early days of the hobby, after D&D had come out but before any other game did, there were such "basic concepts of roleplaying" as you must roll 3d6 for a character's stats, characters must be defined by a class system, and the game's name must be "(blank) & (blank)" preferably with illiteration.

I meant more basic than that. That there are players and a referee, that you don't need to rely on a board or game pieces, and that characters are in some way codified and their actions resolved (to some degree) with dice. Now these concepts may be considered cliche as well. But I'm not interested in some diceless, all player no GM type of game. I would say that 9 out of 10 games still use these basic principles in some form, and I'm not after some ground breaking new concept for its own sake.

In regards to the "Fantasy heartbreaks", it seems that all used D&D as a starting point (even if it was to do things in a different way). I certainly didn't start with a completely blank slate, but I wasn't out to fix a system either. Along its journey, the system got broken down and rebuilt (around the stuff that I really liked) several times to eliminate this bits and pieces approach that was inherent in the early stages. I'm simply on the latest rebuild and looking for more tools and analytical methods.

QuoteWhat I'm trying to point out with this is not that you're game is all that bad, but it may be better. Better for you, that is. I suggest you go to the Forge resource library and check out all of the games there. Take your time. You don't have to read or play them all before dinner, but you need to build up your experience with how different people make their games. Stick to the free games, if money is an issue.

True. I have been looking at stuff already and will continue. There is some fantastic stuff I saw in terms of the concept and execution. The Sorcerer stuff and Fortune in the Middle to name a couple. From design viewpoint I can appreciate them, but not a game style I want to play. The game that has my interest is the Riddle of Steel. I'll be picking that up once in wide distribution. As far as costs go, that was a concern in the early days. Now I just don't want to buy a ton of stuff I'll never play.

QuoteAnd while you're at it, see if you can figure out what parts of your game you are not happy with. WHat would you like to see work better? WHat part of your game to you dread having to deal with? You don't have to list these things here, but you should list them for yourself so you can identify problem areas and then come up with solutions.

This is a continuous process. These kinds of problems are easier to spot (if not always to resolve).

Quote
OK, first of all I've recently gotten a bit of a chip on my shoulder about in-depth settings. I've decided I dislike RPGs that require all that reading to be able to enjoy the game.

Well on this issue, there is no way to satisfy everyone. Some people will claim that game mechanics are meaningless without a setting as a point of reference. I certainly don't see how a game can be run on mechanics alone. Likewise, if the game can only be played after consuming hunderds of pages of background, that's not useful at all either.

The point of tying the settings to the rules, was to explaing the why's. The mechanics can explain why I use "Dark Attributes" and how they work. You don't need to know anything about the setting. If you want to know why they are there, it is because of the setting. That's the connection. The rules are not fused to the setting, but conversely they were not created in a vacuum. There is no reason that setting/mechanics could not be separated.

QuoteNext, I'll bet that you could take d20, GURPS, Hero, Palladium or whatever other system you can find and use it with your setting and it would work just fine. It might take a patch rule or two, but it will still work.

Yes, I certainly aggree. The setting doesn't demand a specific mechanic. I wouldn't use any of these systems (with the possible exception of Hero) with the setting not because they can't work, but because they can't work the way I want unless they were so heavily modified, they were almost unrecognizable. But thats not because of some setting incompability, but due to a personal dissatifaction with the mechanics.

QuoteMy point here is to address the "system that is designed to work with it" comment. I believe you'd be very hard-pressed to show me anything that could not be done using an existing RPG system in one way or another. I'm not saying you should junk your system and use d20. I am just saying that a particular system does little to emphasize a setting mood or whatever in itself. This is my opinion, and I'm sure several people will disagree with me on this.

My point was that if the setting calls for plenty of combat, having a system whose main strength is character interaction and diplomacy is not a good way to go about it. So naturaly the feel of the setting is reflected in the feel of the system. I would be really surprised of someone looking at the system declared it was used to high fantasy, superpowerful characters slaying dragons and nasty demons. Likewise for the setting.

A problem might be that I'm willing to axe the setting and start from scratch. It might have to come to this if I discover that I'm needlessly limiting myself.

QuoteI'm going to have to say no.This whole idea is fairly cliche. Painfully so, I would say. You could make this better by figuring out how the characters sway this balance and maybe what happens when they sway it. Just a suggestion there.

Indeed, no arguing that one :). Here is of course the heart of the problem. It has been done to death, but not in a way that I like. Do I keep looking, or just do it myself? At this point, I would say there is no need to do my own design. Something out there surely does what I want. But if everyone thought this way, would there be a need for the Forge? Ten years ago the design route was much more attractive.

So from a pure game play perspective, I shouldn't bother, but I like the bother, so I will continue to do so. The problem I'm finding is that I don't want to look for a narrow game concept for its own sake, and saying "you create characters and shit happens" isn't the answer either. Or maybe it should be! The original answer to what do the characters do, was "anything they want (within the scope of the mechanics and setting)". What I really need to do is figure out if there is anything of value in here, and build off of that.

QuoteTerms like "gritty" have become all but meaningless to me from overuse.
Give me an example of a great moment provided by the two contrasting elements.

Low-fantasy, fight for survival, festering wounds...gritty. Don't know if there are better ways to describe this. A player in the game knows that being hit in the head with a sword usually has bad consequences. There is no "I have plenty of hit points to deal with it" mentality. Thats the one side, the other was having the presense of a diving being manifest itself directly, as the characters managed to get their attention during an epic battle. Not a common occurance, but it illustrated that the characters were no longer common, even if the rest of the world didn't appreciate that.

For the character effectiveness part, it applies to conflict (magic or combat), where good tactics and choices make the character really stand out (or survive tough odds). The players took pride in playing their characters to the hilt, and another player could never get the same good outcome (on a consistent basis) with someone else's character. The same applied to character knowledge. This in itself is nothing special, since given enough time or player very well versed in the system could master any all characters given to him. I was simply focusing on the aspects of the game that players really enjoyed.

Jack, you've given me a lot to think about. I'm going to check out the various resources here at the Forge, and hopefully have a fresh outlook on my game. I'm still interested in any other criticism. I don't expect the Forge folks to be shy about it :).

Quote from: ks13Hmm, I guess I didn't think about this. So if the Forge is for existing or aspiring publishers only, I might be in the wrong place

Oh, no no no. You are perfectly welcome here. Besides, I don't know of any amateur RPG design sites like the Forge. TBH the concept of amateur design vs. indie design came to me as I wrote my response and it grew as I was writing. I actually rather like it, but it's hardly part of the lexicon.

You should find plenty of help here, just be aware that many here have publishing as an end goal and advice to that end would probably be moot for you.

Quote...It has been done to death, but not in a way that I like. Do I keep looking, or just do it myself? At this point, I would say there is no need to do my own design. Something out there surely does what I want...
...The problem I'm finding is that I don't want to look for a narrow game concept for its own sake, and saying "you create characters and shit happens" isn't the answer either. Or maybe it should be! The original answer to what do the characters do, was "anything they want (within the scope of the mechanics and setting)". What I really need to do is figure out if there is anything of value in here, and build off of that.

Well, the "you create characters and shit happens" is what I have often called the Magical Mystery Tour style. I call it this because one description of the Beatles' movie was "The Beatles some close friends and circus performers load up into a bus and travel the English countryside filming whatever happened. Nothing did."

You might want to look into Ron Edward's Kicker and Bangs concepts for some inspiration here. You can make characters and just see what happens, but it's better if something interesting happens. I mean, who wants to play Charter Accountancy the RPG? (Besides you, Glenn)

You don't seem to need my encouragement, but do keep it up with your own game. Way I'm seeing it now, Amateur design is sort of like home movies. You can't compare them to Hollywood films. They're in your video collection for different reasons. Something like that. I oughta do a write up on this concept.

There's a thread on Kickers & Bangs here

You can also use the Search feature above.

Hi ks13 from Boston, and welcome to The Forge.

The answer to your question, "If it does what I want, it can't really fail (or can it?)" is an unequivocal NO. People here often say things like, "if your game works for you, then you don't need any help." Unfortunately some have interpreted that as a veiled put-down, as it it meant "if your standards are that low, then fine, we can't help you." It doesn't mean that. If I ever thought for one minute that it meant that, I'd be out of here so fast I'd have to lease a T2 line to keep up with the speed of my departure. So if you're waiting for someone to reply, "yeah, it sounds like the original game system you invented and you've been using successfully for the past twelve years is actually worthless crap, good thing you've got me (or us) to set you straight," I hope you have a very long wait. Meanwhile, allow me to congratulate you on your achievement.

The problem is, you say you're not concerned about publicaction but the questions you're asking are meaningful mainly in the context of intended publication. How could your system possibly be "doomed to failure" when you've already used it successfully, unless you mean failure as a published product? Without aspirations to publication, the only way your system can fail is if you use it and you or your players don't like the results. Publication opens up lots of additional failure modes that you've never had to worry about before. For example, if your system is too hard on the GM, that's no problem for you if you have the GM skills to make it work, but it means most other GMs who try to use it won't be able to get as much out of it as you do. For another example, generic-ness is not much of a drawback for playing your game, since many players want to play generic fantasy systems. But it would be a drawback for publishing your game, since most of those players don't want to buy (or even download for free) another generic fantasy system.

Is it possible that the real issue is that your system has done everything you wanted it to do in the past, but there are different things that you now want it to do that it cannot in its present form? Was there some characteristic of your last gaming group that you suspect a new group of players might not share, making the game less good a fit? Is there some reason, besides the possibility of publication which you say isn't an issue, that you now want to create a less "generic" system? Does your system really do everything you want it to, or does it only do everything you expect it to? That last question, I believe, is where your critical analysis should start. (In fact, I believe asking oneself that question frequently is one of the keys to creativity in general.)

"Distilling down to a single gimmick" as the alternative to "generic" is, in my opinion, an unfair characterization of the game design principles espoused here (though it does, unfortunately, have some truth in it where marketing is concerned). The alternative to generic-ness is not having a gimmick, it's having a design whose every detail supports the goals of play. Breaking the genre is not required: Hero Wars is about legendary heroism; The Riddle of Steel is about combat tactics; OtherKind is about elves, dwarves, and orcs; Draconic is about dragons. All of these are staples of "generic" fantasy. The difference is that these games dare to be really "about" those things instead of just using them for decoration.

Your game is about the balance between good and evil. Is that a lame premise? Not necessarily. Old fashioned "black and white" good versus evil is an element of fantasy that I've never seen done well in role playing games, which have a history of reducing good and evil to political shades of gray (in old school games -- for example, D&D made it shades of gray in the setting but kept it black and white in the mechanics, which reduced it to nonsense) or to an individual internal struggle (in Vampire and most games since including Sorceror). Sure that's more realistic in the first case, and more literary in the second, but there's something to be said for dark lords and vast armies massing in the east, especially in a game system where you appear to want to emphasize what most here would call "gamist" goals (utilitizing characters as tools to their maximum effectiveness). Create mechanics and a setting that really support the good versus evil trope, do that one thing well (and it doesn't have to be that, that's just an example), and your game will no longer be generic and it won't be a gimmick either. If you've already done that, I for one want to see it.

- Walt

QuoteThink of the characters as tools, and utilizing that tool to its maximum effectiveness to create something cool is an important part of the game.

I think it's kinda funny that Walt read this and thought "Gamist" whereas I read it and thought "Narrativist". I suppose it could be my lack of clarity on Narrativism, but it seems to me that this concept speaks volumes about your gaming goals as being highly narrativist. I suppose it boils down to whether creating "something cool" means winning, or telling a good story... Or something else entirely.

I'm in the process of game design myself (albeit in hiatus, as real life is sapping a lot of my creativity at current) and when I came here, I think some of the most useful things I found were those who were willing to evaluate and suggest new things to try with the mechanics, and the language to evaluate what my game was about. I found out, to my dismay, that my game wasn't about much, to begin with.

I think an important thing to begin with is to decide, retrospectively, whether your game's style and goals fall most closely into Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist patterns. If it seems to fall into two of these, it would be good to determine which is more what you're looking for, and then evaluate the mechanics to see if they support this primary, and if they do, how well they support the secondary(if any) without losing their focus.

Things like FitM (and it's siblings FatB and FatE) are good terms, but I think they're secondary to deciding what your game's goals are. Once you've done that... then comes the hard part of really evaluating your mechanics, getting rid of what does not support the goals (and the Premise, as suggested by Walt and Jack) and replacing them with new or modified rules which DO support the goals.

Take this for what it is worth. I'm somewhere in the groping and evaluating stage myself, so perhaps my advice is half-baked, and should be ignored until I've had a bit more experience.

Ahh, more great info. I'll check out the Kickers and Bangs stuff. Thanks for the link. In regards to having something to do in my game, that is never a problem. It just doesn't seem to fit neatly in a single sentence. I could ask the players, what do you want to do in this fantasy setting. They could say we want to be pirates, or we want to be part of merchant house running caravans along dangerous routes, or we're going to be part of a thiefs guild, or we want to be Mage slayers, etc...Any one of those I can see placing somewhere in my world and running with my rules. The thing is, that I personaly, would almost always tend to bring up the fact that there is some nasty evil shit going on, that 99% of the world populace does not want to know about. That is the one thing I believe my game would gravitate to. These elements could be ignored, but I feel that the true benefits of my setting would go to waste. Does this become cliched? It's certainly nothing new, but it never starts out as we are the good guys, let us go kick some evil butt. Here is how things would go down:

1) Character creation - it certainly is old school style in that it is fairly involved and the character concept grows as everything is being put together. It is not a minimalist approach. Remeber, I started with players whose rpg understanding was very limited, and this helped out a fair bit. Thus it may be a dinosaur, but I still find it very enjoyable. During the process there is enough info and hooks generated that the player will already have options as to what he wants to explore once the character is in the game.
2) Using the ideas in the character generation and some sort of motivating factor - the characters are assembled and thrown into action.
3) Initialy, the game involves character and setting exploration and dealing with immediate problems. On the big scale they might be mundane, but they quickly lead to more involved conflicts.
4) The underlying "darkness" is revealed, and the sence of this balance is introduced. The feel is that one small incident can start an avalanche and everything is lost. The characters are not always fully aware of this, and their goals are not explicitly "save the world". They just got stuck in middle of something.

The issue is, that there is nothing inherent in the rules (right now) that says you get to step 4. And I'm really thinking of giving this center stage. Forget the possibilities of unrelated adventures, focus on this conflict.

While publishing is not driving motivator, I want to take things beyond where they sit now. So thinking in terms of publication might get me moving in the right direction.

QuoteYour game is about the balance between good and evil. Is that a lame premise? Not necessarily. Old fashioned "black and white" good versus evil is an element of fantasy that I've never seen done well in role playing games, which have a history of reducing good and evil to political shades of gray (in old school games -- for example, D&D made it shades of gray in the setting but kept it black and white in the mechanics, which reduced it to nonsense) or to an individual internal struggle (in Vampire and most games since including Sorceror). Sure that's more realistic in the first case, and more literary in the second, but there's something to be said for dark lords and vast armies massing in the east, especially in a game system where you appear to want to emphasize what most here would call "gamist" goals (utilitizing characters as tools to their maximum effectiveness). Create mechanics and a setting that really support the good versus evil trope, do that one thing well (and it doesn't have to be that, that's just an example), and your game will no longer be generic and it won't be a gimmick either. If you've already done that, I for one want to see it.

Interesting view. The situation is that "evil" is very strictly defined. No one summons demons for the goodness of mankind. The characters, however, are in shades of grey. So are you proposing that the characters should be more distinctly "good"? Right now there is a certain boundary, PC's might be nasty and "evil" by social standards, but not in the damned forever catagery (true pawns of Darkness).

In regards to the GNS thing, I would have said Simulationist. Thats how the mechanics approach it. Pure Narrativist this is not. Yet there were elements of it in play (now I might be way off on interpreting GNS, so bear that in mind). For example, "cool" was when the character kicked serious ass. Great tactics, nice bit of dice rolling (Gamist all the way?). But "cool" was also playing the character such that everyone felt the character perfectly represented the setting. In a sense, the player defined what it meant to be a mage or whatever character he was playing. Things would just kind of click and fall in place. I can't really describe this much better. It was most obvious in player knowledge vs character knowledge. I don't know if we ever used player knowledge to increase the dramatic value of a scene, but it was never used as a tactic to "win". We also ran the games with a fair bit of metagamming taking place, with player discussions and tactics analysis. These were then translated into character actions. In fact, playing with other gms and groups, I was taken aback that "roleplaying" was being defined only as "in-character action/speech". Always wondered how some of these gms would role-play a mute.

As far as catagorizing the system in terms of GNS, I'm kind of stuck. I know it's not pure Narrativist, though it might have elements of it; I tend to think of it as Simulationist (due to the mechanics), but perhaps it is Gamist (this one I never fully figured out - if anyone can help clarify it, I would be much obliged.)

I'm getting a better picture of how to approach all of this, so thanks for all the advice.

Hi ks13,

And welcome to the Forge.

QUICK SIDE POINT
Amateur-whatever vs. publisher-whatever is completely irrelevant. Jack apparently free-associated a bit while typing and the thread got a bit whacked for a minute. Your opening post and your general presentation of your game are totally appropriate here - there is no "category" of publisher that matters here except creator-owned vs. not.

Jack, if you want to talk about that stuff (categories of publishing, "amateur," etc), which sounded pretty damn interesting when you explained it, then start a new thread in Publishing.

RETURNING TO THE REGULAR POST

Here are my thoughts at the moment.

1) It sounds to me as if you're ... well, all set. You like your game, you like the play style, and you like how it works out. My question is, what is your specific need, here at the Forge, at this point in the game's development? Depending on your answer, you could do any of the following.

- If the game exists as any sort of document, you might make some or all of it available for us to check out. This will bring up all manner of critique, so it might be helpful to specify what sort of issues you want to know about.

- Ask for playtesting and set up some kind of response system on a website or a mailing list.

- Scout about for people who can help you put it into a more "solid" format (e.g. PDF) or maybe help with layout, maybe get some art, etc.

2) I suggest putting GNS aside for the moment - already a whole bunch of misconceptions have appeared in the thread that ought to be expunged, notably dice = Gamism, minimalist character creation = Narrativism, and others. All that's gumming up our conversation. Just ... toss it, for now. Read the big essay if you want, ask GNS questions in the GNS Forum if you want, and so on. We can get back to how it might or might not apply to your game later.

Best,
Ron

Another trait of the Fantasy Heartbreakers was the strength of the setting.  The main problem with a highly detailed experience in my opinion in the potential for unintended conflict between the character concepts and the setting.

This is made worse when character creation is highly detailed.  It can lead to tedious handholding to avoid breaking the suspension of disbelief (you're gonna have to explain why an Arbu noble isn't proficient in leatherworking).

Strong character creation pairs well with creating the setting in play (or through the character creation sessions).
Weak character creation and strong setting pairs well by letting the characters develop into the setting.
Strong character creation and setting can create serious conflicts and seems to work best with characters who are outsiders.
I've never seen a weak character creation paired with weak setting, but it would seem to have the "Magical Mystery Tour" problem Jack mentioned (I could have sworn that quote was from that parody movie).

Thats a great piece of insight Bailey, I'd never made that connection before but it makes alot of sense.  Probably deserves a thread of its own.

I'd be interested in hearing how KS's game fits in this.  

KS, you mentioned that you could do pirates or merchant caravans et.al.  Would this happen:
1) using your developed character creation system (which is perfectly fine dinosaur or no...it certainly isn't "bad") would players create pirate characters, you'd find a piece of the world that is open to pirate characters, and then much of the setting of that piece would be developed in reaction to the players choices.

2) The players want to play pirates so you'd select a location of the world that is already highly developed and use the existing setting detail of that section to guide the character creation process.

Hey,

Um, Ralph, Bailey's point about setting/character is a re-statement of one of mine, almost verbatim. It's been around since my early days on GO and has been repeated on dozens of threads.

Best,
Ron

It's definitely an interesting topic. I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion of Rich/Sketchy Character and Rich/Sketchy Setting combinations on Gaming Outpost in late 2000, I think. But their search engine seems to be broken, so I can't point you at the exact threads.

Paul

Sorry, I didn't remember where I'd heard it from, and thought it was from one of my GMs back when I was in school.  In any case it looked to fit this particular discussion.

Hi Bailey,

No problem here - I have no objection to statin' the ideas, especially because they do apply to this thread really well. The only thing I wanted to correct was Ralph's perception that this was a new concept.

Anyway, sorry, ks13 - got off on a reference-tangent here.

Back to the point we go.

Best,
Ron