Less = More?

[Grinning Moon]

To further add in the direction of Paul and Dave:

How does the "race differences" comes into play.

The first question that came to me when I read your first post is: What is this game about anyway? which lead me to say more or less the same thing as Dave in his first post!

So, what do the characters do in that game and what do the players do? How the "race choice" aspect interfere with the answers of the previous 2 questions.

Well, the game is effectively about being mercenaries, balancing personal gain against personal valus. The fantasical world of Oxyicus has been invaded by the armies of ARKHAM (All the Rightful King's Horses and Men), comprised of a relentless and merciless species (to the gameworld) the self-proclaimed 'Master Race' of humanity (pronounced 'Hugh-Manianity in the gameworld).

The native inhabitants of Oxyicus are what I plan to hand-out as player characters, but I wasn't sure if people wouldn't feel 'cheated' somehow if I left out the option to play on the team f the genocidal invaders (who would be the only human characters in the gameworld).

What I'd like from that particular game would be to stop fucking around with non-pertinent character options! I want the game to only have 2-4 chargen choices that are all superduper-interesting and impactful, and fuck me if I see anything interesting in choosing whether my character will have long ears or a beard. Better yet, make the super-macho demon-warrior marysue species with tits a prestige option a player can take after collecting 10,000 xp with the usual losers they have to play in the hazing initiation part of the campaign. By the same principle, the psychic fishes with sloping pear-shaped heads and three eyes can be opened for player access when their last characters reincarnate as such. And that only happens if they performed great religious crimes in their last lives. The mandatory cat-people can be characters anybody gets to play, but only if they bring their own cat-ears and are willing to start the game in a malaria-infested jungle, with the first adventure always being the same one about finding your way north. There's your race choosing system in all its glory.

I agree with most of your post. Choices are only good when it actually means something to make a particular choice.

When you mentioned reviews on RPGnet, that made me go "hm?"  This is what I saw going on at that moment (although it may be inaccurate):  you don't feel strongly about this issue (which suggests that it's not particularly important to you) and that's why you don't ALREADY have a hard answer for it, but you're worried that it's important to OTHER PEOPLE and that they might condemn your game for not dealing with it properly.

You are exactly right, my good sir. The issue isn't at all important to me; I know exactly how I want to play my game, and the way I'd play it wouldn't have any need for terrifying human invaders to be available as characters. But I'm not necessarily the only one going to play it, and no doubt other people will see the issue under a different light.

Now, here's the way I deal with a situation like that:  if it's not important to me, it's not important at all.  If it's important to somebody else, well, they're clearly idiots.  I don't tell them that, but I think it, and I believe it's perfectly okay to think it.  But that doesn't mean that I close my mind to the issue; if it comes up later, I can still think about it and investigate it and analyze it.  If and when I realize that the issue IS important to me (which has so far coincided with a hard answer originating from my own brain), then I change my mind.  Those other people are no longer idiots; I was an idiot, at least about this particular issue, until now; now I'm better.  I do this all the time, and I believe it's a perfectly healthy learning process.

Well, yes, it is - but I think it's also a good way to land a mountain of errata on top of a game. Or perhaps I'm just an idiot?

Another thing to consider...

Are you planning to produce a single stand-alone game? Or has the option of game supplements and follow-up books been considered?

Oh God no. No, no, no. I realize that lots of people like supplements, but man, I HATE them. I've hated them ever since I had to spend half a paycheck picking-up Rifts world books for months just so I didn't feel like I otherwise had an incomplete game (AaaRRRggGG!!![/i] even just thinking about every time I had to read that stupid fucking line, 'See World Book X for more details...' in a new world book I just finished buying, infuriates me beyond measure. I felt like it was a real victory whenever a book was referenced that I actually already owned and could immediately turn to). Why, oh WHY, release a product that is effectively 'somewhat' complete? Why not just slap-in the extra few hours and pages of work to bring that fucker full circle, then start on a totally new project? I mean, I wouldn't mind the occassional expansion or two - but supplements just get retarded.

I do think there is a tendency for people to get bored with established PC types once they get used to them, have explored their possibilities, have used them play and tested them possibly to destruction.  So once a sufficient quantity of play has passed, people start to wonder about other character types that they might be able to use and explore.  And I think this happens more where the NPC character type is interesting in its own right, and especially where the NPC-type is arguably more interesting, or seems to be more interesting, than the stock PC types.  A good example of this is the way that Drow characters suddenly became quite popular very soon after they were introduced as a unique monster, some people just couldn't resist the colour associated with them.

And you've basically cornered my other sort-of concern. What about when players get bored of being mercenaries? If I include ARKHAM characters as playable, it'd be kind of like having a whole new game to explore atyour disposal. Of course, this has to be balanced against keeping the game's focus, and not making character creation and absolute nightmare to navigate.

[Vulpinoid]

Oh God no. No, no, no. I realize that lots of people like supplements, but man, I HATE them. I've hated them ever since I had to spend half a paycheck picking-up Rifts world books for months just so I didn't feel like I otherwise had an incomplete game (AaaRRRggGG!!![/i] even just thinking about every time I had to read that stupid fucking line, 'See World Book X for more details...' in a new world book I just finished buying, infuriates me beyond measure. I felt like it was a real victory whenever a book was referenced that I actually already owned and could immediately turn to). Why, oh WHY, release a product that is effectively 'somewhat' complete? Why not just slap-in the extra few hours and pages of work to bring that fucker full circle, then start on a totally new project? I mean, I wouldn't mind the occassional expansion or two - but supplements just get retarded.

I 100% agree with you...especially on the Rifts. I had started collecting it when it was first released, and got sick of it after the first 15 or so world books which each seemed to just up the ante on a few key weapons, armour or spells, then reference a half dozen other books and reprint sections of earlier texts that seemed to bear little relevance to the new setting.

I was just asking because of the perspective this puts onto your question.

With supplements, you don't need to focus on the minor races in the main book. But you might initiate a personal/company rule that a supplemental book is only allowed to reference the main rules, and may NEVER reference another of the supplements. In this way you'd only ever need two books at most to play a specific character race or faction.

It's just a way to keep things simple while allowing a whole heap of depth for your game without producing a 500 page monster that no-one would bother reading.

It can be just as annoying reading a single book that cross references itself to three different parts when you're trying to make sense of a simple rule or game mechanic.

As for the last point you raise...the game being about the mercenaries, but having the ARKHAM as a possibly playable character type. That's exactly the kind of context I'm referring to. Produce the core game about the mercenaries, and then a one off supplement detailing how things are different when you choose to play the ARKHAM group. You can add in balancing factors like internal politics of the group and special considerations for them in this secondary book without needing to bulk out your main rules with them. The mercenary players just don't need to know this level of minutiae.

Again...just ideas...take 'em or leave 'em...

V

[Marshall Burns]

You are exactly right, my good sir. The issue isn't at all important to me; I know exactly how I want to play my game, and the way I'd play it wouldn't have any need for terrifying human invaders to be available as characters. But I'm not necessarily the only one going to play it, and no doubt other people will see the issue under a different light.

Well, okay, but look at it this way for a second, as a thought experiment if nothing else:
I'm guessing that you're making this game because playing it is an experience that you want (forget about other people for the moment; fuck 'em).  So you definitely want to design it for maximum effect towards creating said experience.  Which, by my thinking, means not dwelling on anything that does not work toward creating that particular experience (or at least that particular SORT of experience).

Now let's think about other people.  Statistically speaking, it's highly unlikely that nobody else will be interested in that experience the game creates.  Somebody's gonna like it.  If it's five thousand people, then cool.  If it's five people, then cool.  If someone's not interested in that particular sort of experience, they can play a different game.

My basic belief here is that it is not your (or any other game designer's) responsibility to make a game for everyone--and especially not to wrap up a game for everyone into what is a single game.  In other words, it is not your responsibility to apologize for your art.  Here's what are your responsibilities:

1.  Write about something you care about.
2.  Do it honestly.

That's it.  In fact, I believe that goes for every art form.  Furthermore, I believe (perhaps naively) that if you commit yourself to those two responsibilities, and given enough time and exposure, what comes out will be of interest to a large group of people who will really fucking care about it.  And that's what really matters.  That artist-audience connection, regardless of the size of said audience, would be the best possible outcome for the work in question.  (Sales?  Forget about the sales.  Fuck the money.  Money is incidental, and it's never worth short-changing your muse.)

That's where I'm coming from, anyway, and you can take it for whatever, as I said.  As you can probably tell from all the italics and swearing (I rarely say "fuck" in day-to-day conversation), this is a topic that I have VERY strong feelings about.  I'm not trying to beat you over the head with it; I just can't even think about it without getting all fired up.  If we were having this conversation in person, I'd be banging my fist on the table and smoking cigarettes like I had a grudge against them.

with the best of possible intentions (seriously),
-Marshall

[casquilho]

Here's what are your responsibilities:

1.  Write about something you care about.
2.  Do it honestly.

I agree with Marshall here 100%. Once you can do this, the rest will follow. Once you have articulated your vision and presented the experience you want the game to offer, you will find like minded folks who appreciate your vision.

I will add one item to Marshall's list though.

3. Accept your vision is as valid as any other.

I believe too often creative efforts get "self edited" because the artist becomes too concerned what the critics will say. It is good to consider the critics in case they offer something you can use to make your effort better. But in the end, do not allow the critic to drive your efforts. No matter how good of a game you come up with there will be those who spend time trying to tear it apart because it does not fit their vision of what experience they want to have.

Daniel