How to Design a Fantasy Heartbreaker.

[Valamir]

Marcus, I respect your right to have your own opinion, but I think you are too emotionally tied to your own labor of love to see clearly what is being said.  You have so much invested in what you've created that you're seeing criticism as attacks, and suggestions as flames.

You have created a game you enjoy...fantastic.  And I don't mean that snidely, I mean fantastic.  If you and your friends are having a good time and your game accomplishes what you want it to do, than 100% great.

But when you start talking about "art-snobbery" and designing games that "appeal to everyone"...you're talking about things with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.  

"Fantasy Heartbreaker" uses the word "Heatbreaker" for a reason.  The only insult in that term is what you put there yourself.  Its not called "Fantasy piece of crap"...its called "Fantasy Heartbreaker".  Meaning, its a heartbreaker.  Why?  Because there's so much more it could have been.  Because there are nuggets of really awesome stuff in there.  And because unfortuneately, that awesome stuff is contained within a wrapper of preconceptions and assumptions about what games are supposed to be like, that will prevent them from ever being anything more than someones homebrew.

You want to know how I can say that with confidence?  Because I have a shelf stuffed full of games whose designer was every bit as passionate about their creation as you are about yours.  They just knew that their game did X, Y and Z better than "any other game" (where "any other game usually meant D&D, and or WOD) and that would make a difference.

I can pretty much guarentee that those games have more copies sitting in boxes in their basement than they ever sold.  Why? Because, ultimately the game didn't offer enough that gamers couldn't already get from games they already have...be it D&D or their own home brew.  A cool concept for how to do magic and a new name for elves isn't going to get anyones attention.

If all you want is to make a fun home brew for yourself...more power to you.  That's grass roots gaming at its best and has been a core of the hobby since the first odd shaped die hit the table.  But if your're actually designing a game to be published...well...then you've entered different territory alltogether.  You and your friends having fun around a table is no longer a sufficient yardstick as to its broader appeal.

I was excited for a moment by your game description...especially the part about the Wielders.  That idea might have been something worth me hecking out.  But that's not the direction you're going.  You'd rather do a game where players can play anything or do anything and have any sort of adventure and you have a kick ass magic system...

Well sorry.  But I have a dozen kick ass magic systems sitting on my hard drive right now.  I can do my own home brew magic rules for a generic fantasy setting.  Me and every third gamer out there's been doing that since we were twelve.

If that was all it took to be a successful RPG, the games on my shelf would be hit sellers not obscure titles available only on ebay or dusty discount bins.

And as for game designers here not knowing what the market really wants...well.  When you have some of the top most widely recognized and widely respected game designers in the industry making stopping by the Forge booth a top priority of their GenCon agenda...then you can at least be sure that something we're doing here is piqueing some interest.

No we don't have all the answers.  But we do ask the tough questions...and that makes all the difference.

[Hardpoint]

Hello,

This thread badly needs focus.

1. Jack, thanks for trying to keep it on track.

2. Mark and Marcus, please take all discussion of (a) whether the term "Heartbreaker" means something, and if so what; (b) presentation and physical design of games; and (c) any point or utility to GNS-theorizing to other threads in the appropriate forums.

Thanks,
Ron

I apologize for getting off topic. I was just reading the various articles on here and found some of them to be somewhat narrowminded and worse yet, cynical. It was something that was brewing inside me and had to come out. I apologize for being offtopic and now that this is off my chest, I can get back to the issues at hand.

[Hardpoint]

I was originally going to answer Ben with a lengthy post, but I erased it. Why? Well, because I had a slight epiphany which I thought I might share with you, that IS on topic.

Perhaps how to make a Fantasy Heartbreaker is to make a product that lacks a unique self image. Those games that start with the concept, "Xgame done right" simply lack a proper identity and this is why they break the heart. They never find their own voice, even if they make all kinds of interesting new "technology" bits.

As Anya points out, PFRP is something of a DnD Heartbreaker (and still the best of the Palladium products IMO), but it at least found itself an identity through the marketing muscle and sweat of Kevin and his wife. This then lead to the TMNT and Robotech licencses, and eventually to Rifts. PFRP is not so much a Heartbreaker as it is a stepping stone to other games which are not Heartbreakers (well...for some anyway).

So to avoid a Heartbreaker label, a game needs to find its own "voice", which is the same thing I was trying to say in regards to looking at how video games are done. The heartbreaker concept is all over the game industry (regardless of what Ben thinks, video games and RPGs have a LOT in common...especially since a great many video game makers were and/or still are RPGers too) They do the same thing as the next game, 99% of the time, but what makes them stand out is their vision and voice. Prime example is the PC games Sin and Half-Life. Sin is forgotten, while Half-Life is considered a classic. They both came out the same month, and even looked somewhat similar visually. The difference is that while Sin's vision was hackneyed and flat, Half-Life was vibrant and new. Sin set out to make a FPS, Half-Life set out to make a unique experience. That's what I'm talking about with the video game model, how a game can be totally using the same stuff other games did, but stand out because it has a VOICE that is clearly heard. The game that ends up a Heartbreaker is one that's voice cannot.

[Ben Lehman]

Perhaps how to make a Fantasy Heartbreaker is to make a product that lacks a unique self image. Those games that start with the concept, "Xgame done right" simply lack a proper identity and this is why they break the heart. They never find their own voice, even if they make all kinds of interesting new "technology" bits.

BL>  I think that this is exactly right, and is the clarity that the term needed.  Sweet.

yrs--
--Ben

[kamikaze]

This thread badly needs focus.
2. Mark and Marcus, please take all discussion of (a) whether the term "Heartbreaker" means something, and if so what; (b) presentation and physical design of games; and (c) any point or utility to GNS-theorizing to other threads in the appropriate forums.

A fair cop on c and b.  However, you cannot talk about a thing without knowing what it is and why it came to be that way.

Heartbreakers are, by their nature, always created by naifs: people who don't know what they're doing and don't know what the state of the art is, but they've had one or two good ideas.  So they end up producing something that's immensely derivative of obsolete games in most areas, while tacking on their good ideas.

If you can look and identify them as "Yet Another X Clone" (the phrase I used before your essay, and still do most of the time), then you're no longer capable of sitting down and writing one.  You might be able to make a new game--Mechanical Dream or Children of the Sun, perhaps--but you cannot produce yet another Deathstalkers or FATAL.

The ironic part is, naive enthusiasm can carry them a lot further than cynicism and maturity; at least Undiscovered has seen print.  It's a pity it won't live, it had zero chance in the market from the moment it was conceived, but it's a nice big hardcover when most of the high-falutin' indie games everyone's so proud of exist only on web sites.  I strongly suspect it's sold more copies than a number of printed indie games.

[Hardpoint]

Reading the writeup on Undiscovered on cyberdungeon.com shows me that this is indeed what I was talking about. Yes, it is a Heartbreaker from the description in this forum, but that is not meaning that it is a bad game, just a poorly marketed one. I wish them nothing but tons of good luck, as they've done the gutsy thing, which is printing a book.

Anyone actually gotten to read this "heartbreaker"?

[kamikaze]

Reading the writeup on Undiscovered on cyberdungeon.com shows me that this is indeed what I was talking about. Yes, it is a Heartbreaker from the description in this forum, but that is not meaning that it is a bad game, just a poorly marketed one. I wish them nothing but tons of good luck, as they've done the gutsy thing, which is printing a book.
Anyone actually gotten to read this "heartbreaker"?

Yeah, I got a review copy.  I didn't go into the heartbreaker aspect of it there, I just reviewed the product itself.  I'd like it to succeed, even though I know it can't.

Aside from the D+D-based anachronisms, and some game-balance questions about the psionics, it's a solid game.  I really like it; it has just the right mix of simple and crunchy for my taste, it's complete in one book, and it uses art well without being a coffee-table book.  If it had come out 20 years ago, it would have had a good chance of eating AD&D1's lunch.  But now?  No way.

[Jeffrey Miller]

I do not know if it is possible to generate a heartbreaker without this scenario.  I think that the time, gradual development, and isolation are important.

I will agree with the isolation.

While anecdotally I'd have to agree, I'm not sure its a requirement.  What is the motivation for the fantasy heartbreaker (or heartbreakers of any stripe, really?)  I can easily envision a case where a person has been fully exposed to a variety of theories and systems, but is trying to capture a style of play peculiar to their experience, and don't quite have the understanding to see that as a social event rather than a mechanical or setting-based event.

-j-

[madelf]

Regarding Undiscovered...

I'd like it to succeed, even though I know it can't.

On what basis do you say it can't?

It's out there.
It seems to be selling.
They're still going ahead with supplemental material.

It may not become the game of the decade, but are you sure it's a complete failure?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

While anecdotally I'd have to agree, I'm not sure its a requirement.  What is the motivation for the fantasy heartbreaker (or heartbreakers of any stripe, really?)  I can easily envision a case where a person has been fully exposed to a variety of theories and systems, but is trying to capture a style of play peculiar to their experience, and don't quite have the understanding to see that as a social event rather than a mechanical or setting-based event.

I suppose that theoretically it's possible. It also may have to do with the level of talent or skill the designer has. I suppose it's possible that someone may be the Ed Wood of RPG design.

The traits of a heartbreaker, based on the recent discussion, seems to be obvious enthusiasm-- the game is a true labor of love, and failure to distinguish oneself above an "also ran." This may be cliched design, as I had originally stated, or it may be various other reasons. I'm happy with this definition. It also explains why I can't write one. I simply can't get enthusiastic about such a game. I know it's a waste of my time. Hell, I have a hard enough time putting effort into the game concepts I *do* think are worth my time.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Regarding Undiscovered...

I'd like it to succeed, even though I know it can't.

On what basis do you say it can't?

It's out there.
It seems to be selling.
They're still going ahead with supplemental material.

It may not become the game of the decade, but are you sure it's a complete failure?

I think that success/failure is a tough egg. Is success sales or continued play? Also, I don't think success or failure is telling of a heartbreaker. Only that the best a heartbreaker can expect to have a small yet devoted following. What they can expect, at least. All levels of form and success are still possible. Sometimes the gods smile on fools.

[contracycle]

It may not become the game of the decade, but are you sure it's a complete failure?

Hmm.  Do you think its going to make its capital investment back?  I know nothing about it, just asking.

Part of my concern about this is people can end up in real difficulty of the debt variety by trying to take an essentially unworthy product to the market.  There is a point at which it is irresponsible to encourage a design that is likely doomed in your estimation.  It is not criticism for criticisms sake.

Additionally, I wanted to say we should not get carried away with the Heartbreaker label, having identified it.  Some derivative games may not be Heartbreakers because they do have a voice (a description I like a lot, btw), and some, like FATAL, are just fucked up.  But I think this has already been said and I agree with Jacks last post in all particulars.

[Mike Holmes]

I'm really confused as to what this thread is supposed to be about.

Jack, you keep bringing up Heartbreakers repeatedly in several threads, but I've yet to see anything added to what was in the original articles. In fact all these threads on the topic only seem to confound what seemed to me to be a simple principle. The thing that really gets me is that the article is called "Fantasy Heartbreakers" and just now you figure out that it's all about fantasy games. Just like the articles state. Huh.

Marcus in one stab at it has it down cold. FH are games based off D&D that don't have their own "voice" as he puts it (and it's ironic that he rails against it, because as we've discovered my guess that his game was a FH was based on the fact that I was trying to assess it from what was, essentially an advertisement; apparently his game does have it's own voice). Oh, they have things to say, but they're doing it in ways that are not intrinsic to their own visions. It's really a very simple application of System Does Matter.

Marcus, what the theory here boils down to is that there are ways to make a better system. That's not really controversial. GNS is only one sub-theory that addresses only a part of that (and one which we debate the importance of regularly). Nobody is saying that it's some end-all way to design games from top to bottom. It's just one potential part of achieving that voice. So, all the Fantasy Heartbreakers article is saying is that there are some games out there that don't acheive what they could because they only are aware of a narrow means to achieve their goals.

Interestingly, I sorta support one of Anya's ideas in a way. I was one of the first people to propose that one ought to, as a form of something like an apprenticeship, make a Fantasy Heartbreaker. Sort of a rite of passage. I did this myself, certainly, and maybe I just want people to share in having suffered through doing it. It's actually not neccessary, however. Especially because most of us have done it already. Heck, if you've heavily modified your D&D game, this was your apprenticeship to being a designer, right there. If you can skip the pain of putting out a game that doesn't project it's real image, avoid it.

We all know we can do better than just decoration of existing models. To an extent, we all are just copying D&D, I guess - after all, these are all RPGs. The question, however, is to what extent the changes we make represent substantively good design, themselves. Not in terms of "not being like D&D", but in terms of the design being what it needs to be. Having that "Voice" which Marcus mentions.

Mike

[madelf]

Hmm. Do you think its going to make its capital investment back? I know nothing about it, just asking

I really don't know that much about it myself.
I've done freelance artwork for the "Undiscovered: Quests & Adventures" PDF supplements, but I'm not privy to the inner workings of the company.

I do know they've done about 4 (maybe 5) of the supplements & are still hiring additional artwork. (and they're not offering slave-labor rates like some either) So I figure they're at least breaking even, or they're gluttons for punishment.

Either could be the case, of course, but at least they're keeping a reputation for paying their bills, which is better than some of the upstart publishers can manage. I'd call that a good sign.

I was mainly wondering what your feeling that they couldn't succeed was based on.

[Chris Goodwin]

Since the publication of the two Fantasy Heartbreaker essays, there has been some on-again, off-again discussion about fantasy heartbreakers. A good deal of the discussion has been about what is a fantasy heartbreaker. What are its attributes?

Reinventing the wheel is a common attribute of fantasy heartbreakers, either in a general sense (for example, coming up with a skill system for AD&D1 when that's all you've played) or specifically (said skill system looks a lot like the GURPS skill system).  

I think part of what breaks our hearts when we see them is not just the fact that there's a really nifty idea in what is otherwise Game X Done Right, but the fact that in a lot of cases either the really nifty idea or a secondary idea is something that Game Y did fifteen years ago, and that it's obvious that a lot of creative energy was put into it.  

Forgive me if I'm restating the obvious or adding fuel to a fire somewhere.