Topic: [Cornerstone] Content
Started by: Paganini
Started on: 12/30/2001
Board: Indie Game Design
On 12/30/2001 at 4:18am, Paganini wrote:
[Cornerstone] Content
Supposing you picked up the latest $5-$10 self-published indie-RPG. You take it home and read it, and, regardless of what kind of setting information it contains, as far as rules go all it contains is the Cornerstone system I proposed today. The game might have lots of examples, suggestions for how to apply the mechanic in many different situations, but mechanicswise it's what I showed you.
What's your reaction? Would you be disappointed? Would you feel that you wasted your money? Are the Cornerstone rules I've presented comprehensive enough (despite being very simple) to satisfy your gaming needs?
Out of any game book the actual system rules will likely take up at most 5 pages of text. Is that not enough? Is that too much? I want some individual opinions. :smile:
On 12/30/2001 at 7:44am, James V. West wrote:
RE: [Cornerstone] Content
I don't think people rate game quality by how much system there is. I think they go by how good it is, which is highly subjective.
I read your post and thought the system sounded great. It is very simple, and likely there are a number of other games with similar systems and a number of designers with similar ideas because it is so simple. One of my old system ideas used the concept of "descriptors" with bonuses that you'd tally up in a logical manner to enhance a d20 roll vs a target number.
So, yeah, I like it. Do you plan on adding a setting, or is this going to be a kind of "universal" game system? If it is universal, I'd say you don't have a lot to sell. Not in terms of quality, mind you, but in beef. Most people who play universal systems like detail. That's a generalization based on the popularity of GURPS and such games, but I think it still holds water.
James V. West
Random Order Creations
On 12/30/2001 at 2:30pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: [Cornerstone] Content
So, yeah, I like it. Do you plan on adding a setting, or is this going to be a kind of "universal" game system? If it is universal, I'd say you don't have a lot to sell. Not in terms of quality, mind you, but in beef. Most people who play universal systems like detail. That's a generalization based on the popularity of GURPS and such games, but I think it still holds water.
I plan on doing settings as non-game-text plugins, sort of the way the Window does. That is, I'll just present the information with interesting writing, and let the GM decide on the numbers... which means he can take a setting and run whatever kind of games he wants with it, using characters from any part of it. I'll probably package one such setting with the core rules to show people what they've got.
Furthermore, I may be alone here, but I *like* my games to be small. IMO, too much information is not a good thing... it can be confusing due to inability to assimilate or disorganization. I like games like Epiphany, The Window, Fable, and so on that are small, clearly writen, easy to understand and apply. Of course, I like elegant mechanics too, but that's another story. :smile: So, anyway, if I'm only going to spend a couple of dollars on a game, I don't mind if the beef is low in page count, as long as the pages that there are have a high beef content. :smile:
On 12/30/2001 at 8:12pm, Cynthia Celeste Miller wrote:
RE: [Cornerstone] Content
I wouldn't be disappointed in the least. I think my reaction would be something along the lines of, "Cool! I can get playing tonight!"
I'm with you on liking smaller rule sets. I think as long as a small, rules-lite system covers all the bases, then all is well with the world.
On 12/31/2001 at 3:17am, James V. West wrote:
RE: [Cornerstone] Content
Three cheers for quick-n-easy systems!!
I agree. If you want to see how much I agree, take a look at my first publicly displayed game, The Pool.
Keep pluggin along with your project!