I'm going to be making at least one of my upcoming campaign books, Cute Fighters, multi-system. I'm limtiing myself to systems that are either free or that I am on very good terms with the pub;lishers of 9and thus could get a good deal for myself). The two systems I currently have laid out for CF are Mutants & Masterminds and Cartoon Action Hour! (I'm still looking for help on the CAH stats). I'm waiting to hear back from a third company (I think they're more impatient with me than I with them at this point, because I keep nagging them to make up their minds on whether to do it.)

Now some companies do very good jobs of marketing multi-system books, but usually they settle on a primary system they market to and include the other systems as a bonus. In the case of CF, that will probably be M&M. However, i want the public who supports the other systems I use to know I'm out there as well, otherwise there would be no point in doing multiple systems.

I'm also wondering how many ystems are too many for a purpose like this. Some systems I like but have doubts about their marketability -- others are good and worthy of my support, but are not out yet (and won't be by the time my book comes out). And of course the cost of some systems is prohibitive for a market and/or company of my size -- much as I'd like to include BESM stats, I can't pay $600 on a 40-page eBook. And at some point the audience has got to be overhwelmed -- to some perspective, stats in any system they don't use consitutes wasted space.

Is there a better way to handle the marketing end of this than what I'm doing?

Michael,

Instead of including three or four sets of stats in the book, would it be possible to include three or four versions of the same book in the download? Each book could be configured and oriented toward the particular system. You could even include more detailed particulars about mechanics for that system in the text. It would also be easier on your customers printing budget since they would not be required to print a bunch of stats that are irrelevant to their system.

Of course if you were planning a traditional print run later on, this would not be your best course. But it is something to consider.

Later,
Mark

I hate to dodge your actual question. But can I ask why you think multi stating is a desireable thing to do to begin with? What are the goals that you're trying to accomplish by doing so? Do you think that you'll sell more copies by being able to market to fans of different games? If so what makes you think so?

Seems to me your specialty is fairly niche settings. These settings are automatically going to appeal to a fairly narrow group of people (which is not a bad thing). I don't know what "Cute Fighters" is about, but the name suggests to me that its going to have fairly niche appeal.

So, given that there are likely to be only a select audience for the setting, do you really think that people who would be inclined to want to play a game called "Cute Fighters" to begin with are going to care what system it is? Are there really folks out there who would say "you know, my entire life I've wanted to run a Campaign like Musical Mistresses...if only it was d20 instead instead of Fudge...but alas..."

I just am REALLY not seeing the value of multi stating products like this. If people are fans of the setting, they'll play the game. If they're not fans of the setting they aren't going to play the game...even if you provide stats for their favorite system. I'm not seeing truck loads of extra customers as a result of multi-stating. Have you had significantly better success with the other multi-stated books you've done that would indicate otherwise?

I'll tell you what multi stating means to me...a HUGE believer in the importance of tieing mechanics to setting...it means "poor design".

If you can stat out your setting in multiple different systems and not have to change anything but attribute scores and modifiers, then you pretty much can't have tied the setting into the system in any meaningful way. Maybe if you redesigned each system from the ground up, but not if all you're doing is multi-statting the characters.

That appeals to me zero.

Further, it occurs to me that your products, perhaps more than most, have a large potential to appeal to non gamers who are fans of the genres you're doing. What fer schlitz do non gamers care about multi-stating...all you're going to do is confuse them.


IMO, design or select the one system that will really truly capture your setting. Massage it and alter it until there is no other game in the universe that those mechanics could be effectively used for except Cute Fighters. Screw multi-stating. Definitely screw d20...even the M&M variant which is one of the better versions. Go with Fudge, go with CAH...heck go with something of your own design. But whatever you do...make it your own. Make it something that will make your customers say "YES...THAT is the exact best system for playing this sort of game I can possibly imagine".

That's just my opinion of course, take it for what its worth.

Well, you can;t really answer a post like that, can you? I have a great deal of respect for Ralph's opinions. Still, I have never believed that designing an entire system from the ground up just to play in one setting was a particularly viable use of my time.

You know how one sometimes makes decisions one can;t coherently explian, but that one hopes will work out anyway? I hope that's the case here. Basically what I am seeking to do is support systems that can uee it (like CAH) while rpoviding setting material that one could work into any settling. The M&M Superlink, int he case of Cute Fighters, is a good way to showcase that system's flexiibility and, because it has the widest exposure of the three systems I'm currnently planning on using, draw people in, allow them to look at the other material as well, and have them say "Hmm.... I wonder what else I could do with CAH or Open Core or...."

Some would call that specious reasoning. if I were in the business of designing systems rather than settings, I'd tell someone who said something like that they were full of crap. But here's a dirty little secret about the RPG hobby that I disocevered -- when I actually do what i do when I play or GM in an RPG, the rules matter much less than I originally thought they did. If you're a good player, you'll base your decisions on what makes most sense for the character to do and what will work int he current situation -- not neccesarily on how many and which dice you need to roll to attempt something. The system is not the game.

This is an interesting topic I have a lot of vested interest in, since I was wrestling with multistating my (currently mothballed) space opera thing.

If what you're doing is stating primarily, I would say pick 1 system that is small, streamlined, what-you-want, and maybe easily marketable, and make that the one for the book; release further stats online for free, maybe encouraging other system developers you like to do the stating work for you. Make these all free online: just the stats, AND please put in a minichapter on how this system is different, what style it will be, and tips for making it fit your game precisely.

My CureFighter-specific thoughts: what your producing is somewhat in a niche, such that *probably* the system isn't the barrier to playing, and speaking to Ralph's point of tying system to setting: there have been reviews that suggested your previous works did not do this adequately (i.e. used relatively vanilla mechanics on very specific settings). I would consider this given some of the system choices, but from what you say you seem to have a different philosophy on the issue.

I am a strong believer that system choice heavily affects the kind of play you get. (The effect may not be everything, but it's there.) However, this does NOT preclude multistating. If I was able to bring my own project to fruition, I'd create system-specific rules for playing Dust Devils (hardended bounty hunters in the cold of space), or InSpectres (a plucky crew on a recently procured vessel), or perhaps D20 (crunchy space mercs), since each of these three play outcomes is part of my greater vision, addresses part of my setting, and is functional etc.

I like the multistatting if doesn't waste too much time from putting out the quality setting, the systems you're supporting coherently fit into the setting, and you're upfront about the differences. The why, for me, is to slightly increase marketability, but also to give support to other systems and more choice to players.

So, a long-winded way of saying I'm very much in favor, in a very specific "System Matters" way. Just a hunch, I think CAH and M&M will produce differing kinds of play, and it will be interesting to see how you handle that.

I must disclaim this post by pointing out that I'm not a business person and I know next to nothing about marketing.

One thing you might consider is publishing a single-system book and then providing free conversion documents on the website. This lets you choose the most marketable of your systems and focus on that system in the publication, hopefully drumming up the most sales. Then, the free downloads give the perception that you're this generous guy willing to do extra work for his fans, and that you provide a lot of support for your products. Just a thought.

Michael, I think you're underestimating the connection between system and setting.

D&D provides a couple of excellent examples. In D&D, mages memorize spells, which are forgotten once cast. They have a cap of spells and have to spend time to re-memorize them. Is this a setting detail or a system detail? Likewise in D&D, characters gain hit points as they become more experienced so that an experienced human fighter can take as much damage as some dragons. Is this a setting detail or a system detail?

In both cases, the answer is "Both!"

I would actually go even even further and say that ALL rules are a component of setting. That means that dual-statting is essentially like creating two settings. They each contain a certain amount of "traditional setting material" plus the rules for each of the systems. If those two systems are similar enough, the resulting settings are similar. And, if you're using someone else's system after conceiving of the setting - BOTH are different from the original concept you had when writing.

Most of the reviews you got on Heartquest go straight to this issue. You had a setting that's about romance, growing up and social norms, but you had rules that aren't. You didn't treat the rules like part of the setting and basically got two different settings: the world according to your flavor text, and the world according to your rules. And then you went and did a diceless version and a revised version using a third set of rules, leaving readers with four essentially conflicting versions of Heartquest.

If you're not a rules person and don't want to deal with that, then you need to find a co-author who is - someone who can take your setting ideas and translate them into mechanics. This strategy has worked successfully for many games, and is certainly better than grasping at one system after another.

Valamir wrote: So, given that there are likely to be only a select audience for the setting, do you really think that people who would be inclined to want to play a game called "Cute Fighters" to begin with are going to care what system it is? Are there really folks out there who would say "you know, my entire life I've wanted to run a Campaign like Musical Mistresses...if only it was d20 instead instead of Fudge...but alas..."

I'll tell you what multi stating means to me...a HUGE believer in the importance of tieing mechanics to setting...it means "poor design".

You guys are really going to hate me for this.

I just got invited in on a printing deal for MH Press. Fair enough. Thing is neither Cute Fighters nor The Grand Defiance is a large enough book to jutify a print run on its own.

So I'm doing a two-fer -- releasinf the two books together.

Once I get the lcienses straightened out I should be up and running in three or four different systems ala Omlevex (if you haven;t gotten it yet, get it now -- it's a work of genius). I don;t contend my work is as good, but it's pretty darned good and the distributor plans to put a decent amount of marketing muscle behind it.

Now you guys who think I should have designed my own syustem from scratch for both games are really going to hate me now. But I've never liked re-inventing the wheel, and tend to favor toolkits over specialized games when I purchase a game product. Some systems do one thing exceptionally well, but don;t do anything else. That can lead to problems.

On the other hand, one of my compnay's 20-05 releases, whcih doesn;lt even have a ittle yetm, is going to be completely scratch-built. I'm not writing it.

Hi Michael,

I didn't understand that post at all. Can you explain what "up and running in three or four different systems ala Omlevex" means?

Best,
Ron

I'm tempted to explain the refernece of Specturm Games' Omlevex (which is a supoerhero supplement for three different systems), but I can;t see what else about my post was particularly unclear.

Personally, I'm in the dark as to what this part means:

Michael Hopcroft wrote: On the other hand, one of my compnay's 20-05 releases, whcih doesn;lt even have a ittle yetm, is going to be completely scratch-built.

Hello,
I'm dying to look at your book, "Cute Fighters." The title is interesting.

What is it, exactly?
A compendium of characters?
A group of scenarios?

If it's a list of characters, then concentrate on who they are and what they do, and include lots of story ideas.
Write up the characters in the most popular sytem that they would be appropriate for.
Then put in conversion rules for any other systems that these characters would appeal to.
In fact, perhaps you could ignore the sytem altogether and just concentrate on the characters themselves, and their motivations, etc. and what kinds of stories they would be involved in.

Just a few thoughts.

Send me an email when you get it done. :)