Topic: One book or two?
Started by: coxcomb
Started on: 3/3/2004
Board: Publishing
On 3/3/2004 at 11:11pm, coxcomb wrote:
One book or two?
My game, Gallant, is a cinematic swashbuckling game. It is intended to be flexible enough to handle pretty much any setting / character appropriate to the genre. I am also developing a setting for the game, which I originally intended to be a separate book under the name Age of Enlightenment. I have several supplements planned, each of which presents a new angle on the game (in supplement A we talk about introducing a specific type of supernatural stuff into the setting, etc.).
Now I am waffling about the format of the system and setting. Part of my gut tells me that I should combine the two things into a single book. This would get more exposure for the setting, but I am concerned that including an “Official Setting” will tie the system to that setting in the minds of players, when my intention is to make a rule set that works for any genre appropriate setting.
To be sure, there is no definitive solution to my quandary. My hope is that the opinions/insights of some of the experienced folks here can help me decide.
So far, I see my options as threefold:
1.) Combine the system and the setting in a single book.
2.) Go with the original plan and release the core rule book and the core setting book separately.
3.) Include a decent overview in the rule book along with information about using historical Europe or your own setting, then release the more complete setting in its own book.
Comments? Ideas? Sage advice?
On 3/3/2004 at 11:32pm, Matt wrote:
RE: One book or two?
Well, I'd start by looking at your USPs (Unique selling points). Which of these are tied to the setting, which to the system? If it's mostly one, then you have your answer.
-Matt
On 3/4/2004 at 12:46am, Dav wrote:
RE: One book or two?
Unless your default setting is going to be "today", I would include the setting in the system book. This gives players and GMs a quick-start point, without the need to invent an entire setting on their own. Then, should you have the idea to have many settings, you can sell them .pdf (as Sorcerer), or collect them into one big settings book.
However, including a setting would be a nice addition to the game.
Dav
On 3/4/2004 at 7:27pm, Alex Johnson wrote:
RE: One book or two?
Depends on the size of your books a little, too.
I like having the rules in one booklet, the setting in a second booklet, and place the booklets into a box. I love box sets. Then offer two versions, the complete box set and the rules only version. In the rules only version include a chapter explaining how to use the rules in a historical context. Keep it short and recommend a setting book for more information.
You could also combine them, but that doesn't seem smart considering you want the game to be setting agnostic. Keep your projects distinct. Especially if I'm creating my own setting, I'd rather pay a few $ for a 100 page rulebook than many $$ for a 350 page book including your setting.
On 3/4/2004 at 8:22pm, Matt Gwinn wrote:
RE: One book or two?
Now I am waffling about the format of the system and setting. Part of my gut tells me that I should combine the two things into a single book. This would get more exposure for the setting, but I am concerned that including an “Official Setting” will tie the system to that setting in the minds of players, when my intention is to make a rule set that works for any genre appropriate setting.
Personally I people will have a hard time separating the two if they were included together. To me, it is implied that the setting and system go together when they are included in the same book - especially if the setting is listed first and takes up a large portion of the text.
If the setting takes up less than 20% of the total text I think you can get away with include it near the back of the book. Be sure to be clear that the setting is optional. Another option is to have two optional settings. When the game provides more than one setting I think it becomes clearer that the setting can vary.
JMO
,Matt
On 3/4/2004 at 8:37pm, coxcomb wrote:
RE: One book or two?
Matt Gwinn wrote: Personally I [think] people will have a hard time separating the two if they were included together.
That's my fear. I don't want to scare away those players who like to make their own setting, or just prefer light setting to begin with.
I'm waffling back toward option #3. If I cover the setting briefly, at the back of the book, maybe it can serve as a teaser for the more detailed book.
On 3/4/2004 at 9:11pm, Matt Gwinn wrote:
RE: One book or two?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it will necessarily scare people away. My thinking is that they may not realize that they don't have to use your setting. People tend to make the assumption that if a game has a setting in it you're supposed to use it.
,matt
On 3/4/2004 at 9:12pm, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: One book or two?
Hey Jay,
I am concerned that including an "Official Setting" will tie the system to that setting in the minds of players, when my intention is to make a rule set that works for any genre appropriate setting.
I was initially resistant when Ron suggested I have a default setting for My Life with Master, because I think the conflict described by the mechanics is timeless. But in retrospect, I'm very very glad I went down that path. It informed my layout, my art direction, my writing style. And you have to know that gamers adapt mechanics more often than they play faithful to them. So don't be concerned about losing potential customers or something by getting specific...giving the Gallant system a setting context will be entirely to the advantage of the game, and without disadvantage.
Paul