Hi,

Here is a thought I had recently which may be relevant to indie game design.

When does an idea start to merit it's own rules set?

For example, let's say I want to do a hidden fantasy game set in the middle ages with witchcraft and such-like. Well, that can be done pretty easily with a copy of Ars Magica and Hedge Magic (an Ars Magica supplement). Doesn't really need it's own rules set.

Ok, I want a game where the characters are artists and low-lifes in Renaissance Florence. Guy Ritchie meets Machiavelli. A bit trickier this one. I can use a generic system, Gurps would probably work, but it's getting to be more of a stretch.

Fine, I want a game set in the Vatican in 1515 with the characters all being priests plotting to advance their careers in Vatican politics. This probably needs its own system, most games don't focus much on the stuff that would be important for this.

When does the line get crossed? When is a new system a good idea? Lots of people are designing indie games but how many of those games are really settings which could just as well use an existing system?

Please note, this isn't a criticism of indie-game design, more an exploration of why something is worth making as a game in its own right in the first place.

Hi Max,

I'm not sure there's a real answer to this question, although I agree with you that the line (perhaps "a" line) is certainly there.

I think part of the problem is that people may be confounding "designing a game" with "publishing a game." My view, and I think a view that's central to the Forge as a site, is that publishing should be an outgrowth of design - i.e., if you're not designing already, don't consider publishing.

However, it appears to be very widely held that the first step is to say, "I wanna publish," and designing is merely one of the myriad steps toward that goal. That's evident at the corporate level - something like Earthdawn represents the top-down, task-allocated, by-the-numbers approach to "getting it out there" and cashing in on the existing market simply by crowding into it. (Let's not forget that Earthdawn was a miserable failure and FASA went bankrupt ...) It's also evident at the grassroots level; Pale Fire and Lance (wolfen) are both struggling with this issue in different ways, and I think it's at the heart of the Heartbreakers topic.

I discovered at GAMA that a lot of people resist (with knee-jerk fear and loathing) the idea that functional design is a sub-set of play, and that functional publishing is a sub-set of design.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I'm glad you mentioned your "heartbreakers" essay as it was partly that which triggered this line of thought.

Essentially, most of the games you cite in your essay did not need their own systems. They were DnD homebrews. There was no clarity of vision, rather a desire to fix certain elements of DnD which were no longer seen as satisfactory.

Wannabee game designers often fail to ask a basic question, why am I doing this?

Paul Elliot (Mithras) designs games I regard very highly. He publishes them for free on his website. He does not do them for commercial gain. He knows why he is creating his own game, he has a vision he wishes to bring to life in a particular way. If others enjoy that vision afterwards, so much the better and he shares it accordingly. When Paul talks about designing a game I listen because he knows what he wants at the end, a game that satisfies him and that he can make available to those who are interested and share his tastes.

Paul is unusual in this. Most amateur designers have a vague notion, as you rightly say, of getting "published". What does that mean? If a company bought the rights to Paul's Zenobia it is no more in the public domain than it is now. The game is already available after all. It is, in a very real sense, published. To the extent it is published it is so as an outgrowth of his design work.

So perhaps this thread should have been called "putting the cart before the horse". Going back to my Vatican example, let's say I try to run that game using Gurps and am unhappy with the result (attempt 1). I still think it's a good idea. I use a couple of other commercial systems, still doesn't work (still really attempt 1). Hmm, ok I try a homebrew of something already out there, perhaps modifying it heavily (attempt 2). Better but not quite right yet. At that point, I create my own system which expresses my vision (attempt 3).

Design in this example is an organic outgrowth of my desire for a particular game to exist. If after going through this I think "why not share this with others?" Then we get to publishing.

The heartbreaker games are at attempt 2, they are not attempt 3. They are frustrating because the glimmer of attempt 3 can be seen in places and that glimmer is better than all the homebrew crap they still have in place.

They stopped too early, they published when they should still have been designing.

I'm starting to lose track of my own thoughts, back to you and hopefully you can extract something from the above.

Hi Max,

We agree so completely on this issue that I'm not sure what's left to discuss, if it's just us two.

So if anyone else wants to jump in for Yea or Nay, please do. If we end up with a wad of Yeas, we can kind of blink and say, "Oh." If some Nays show up, well, then maybe it's time to talk about this stuff.

Best,
Ron

Balbinus wrote: Wannabee game designers often fail to ask a basic question, why am I doing this?

Paul Elliot (Mithras) designs games I regard very highly. He publishes them for free on his website. [Snip.] When Paul talks about designing a game I listen because he knows what he wants at the end, a game that satisfies him and that he can make available to those who are interested and share his tastes.

Paul is unusual in this. Most amateur designers have a vague notion, as you rightly say, of getting "published". What does that mean?

Heh, well Fang I'm with you at least partially on the publishing angle. I'm not nearly as sold on the benefits of self publishing as many here are. Of course that probably comes from being in a service profession where people hire me not because they can't do what I do themselves, but because they just don't want to take the time and take the time to do it right. From my perspective thats the same question as publishing vs self publishing.

But to get back to the actual topic, I have very strong feelings about where the line is for new systems myself, but equally strong feelings that there is no possible way to generalize that line to satisfy the majority.

Being a fan of systems and systems which tie tightly to genre, my line is pretty tight. I'd say MOST games could do with their own system...if not totally new concepts at least new applications and areas of focus.

But this is very much a YMMV question, and not one that IMO could ever be answered.

Hi Fang,

I don't think indie streed cred is an issue.

Speaking personally for the moment, in many ways, right now I'm in the same position Dave Sim was in the 90s, when people thought he'd "hate" them for not self-publishing and he had to say, over and over, (a) he thinks self-publishing is the right decision, (b) he doesn't feel one way or the other regarding someone else's decision about their own work.

But speaking more generally, or more toward the shared issue raised by this thread, I think Max is talking more in terms of designer goals. And that becomes tricky. For some (say Jared), the goal is for people to see, experience, and be affected by his designs - hence publishing in the way he does, he's successful. For others (say Dav), the commercial viability of the game is a central part of his goal, and thus promoting in terms of commerce, and seeing it happen, is success. If your goal is for Scattershot to be picked up for book-publishing, then that will be success (and like Jared's and Dav's goals, yours is not subject to my or anyone else's "approval").

The question, then, is whether people move to publish prematurely relative to their own publishing goals. I agree with Max - yes, they definitely, demonstrably do so. And your question is appropriate: how can I say that? Is that not merely a factor of my notions of "success" relative to theirs?

If we are talking about the Heartbreakers, then I think I present a pretty good argument for why my points (including the one Max has correctly abstracted from the essay) - internal evidence from the texts suggests some aspects of the designers' goals regarding both actual play and commerce, and I think that in most of those games, those goals are clearly not met.

Best,
Ron

I discovered at GAMA that a lot of people resist (with knee-jerk fear and loathing) the idea that functional design is a sub-set of play, and that functional publishing is a sub-set of design.

I guess I'm another "yea" but I think there is a useful way to look at the line of "when am I stretching published (whether free online or bought at the FLGS, or whatever) systems so far out of shape that I might as well be designing one from scratch?"

First, one never designs in a vacuum--"from scratch" means you're using the same design elements all those other folks are using, and maybe you've discovered a spice or two of your own. But that's another side issue.

What I want to bring up is some little-used terminology that good ol' Dictionary Ron created a while ago, and a term that Fang uses in a precise way. I will now probably get them dead wrong, as I often do, but: Ron appears to use "patch rule" as a better way of saying "house rule", making explicit that such rules are inspired by a deficiency in the system one is using. Fang uses "technique" to describe a method that is not in the text as a rule, but which does use the rules as written.

To give examples--I am patching Sorcerer if I change how many victories come out of a die roll, with variants regarding ties and so forth. Donjon Krawl's dice mechanics have undergone several patches to try to fix a happy quantity of successes. However, if I come up with a clever way to roll successes from a, um, Will vs. Cover roll into a Contact roll, that's a technique. Sorcerer has no "intimidate your boss so that he goes into a trance and you can speak to a Contacted Demon through his temporary possession" rule, but you can do such a thing using the rules given.

I would contend that if you find yourself doing more patching than making and using techniques, you should do your own design, instead. I would also add that this condition is sufficient, but probably not necessary, to make that decision. There are doubtless many other factors as well, but this is one that I find particularly obvious. (Using techniques is fun. Coming up with and remembering to use patches in any quantity is a pain, as anyone who's been subjected to "AD&D, but we've got it working so it's really realistic" knows.)

--JB

Y'know, I considered being offended for a while when Ron mentioned my game in the same sentence as "Heartbreakers", but decided against it. I've already taken needless offense in PMs at a comment he made this morning, so I think that fills my quota. So let me come back and try to make a point, instead.

When reading through the Crunchy Bits essays, I did a self-evaluation on my reasons for doing this. I am creating a game not because I want to be rich, and not because I think it will get me chicks. I began the project out of petty irritation, but continued it and redefined it several times because of my enjoyment of the creative endeavor, and because of my desire to share my creation with others. Somewhere along the way, it occurred to me that I might make a small amount of money on this, but it was always a distant possibility, always taking a backseat to creating a viable, enjoyable game with enough uniqueness to set it apart from "that DeeEnDee game". I, like PaleFire, wanted a game which mostly appealed to the Fantasy Gamer, but was different enough to warrant more than a look... but this was a retrofit viewpoint. Originally I wanted a game which pleased me. I did this by taking aspects of games I liked, scrapping aspects of games I didn't like, and melding it into something else which was playable and fun.

I suppose the above essay does not rule my game out of the Heartbreaker category. But it does rule it strongly out of the top-down category; I did not decide to publish, then decide to create a game. I hope, once the setting is fully unveiled, and the mechanics are fully fleshed out, that those together will stand strong enough to warrant their own attention, without the tears shed over the Fantasy Heartbreakers.

Ahem. Now that I've ranted, I'll address the main point of the thread (always try to do that, keeps things tidy.) When does an idea need a new system? Well, I don't think it necessarily needs to go through a 3-step process. If you have an idea which doesn't jive with the way other mechanical systems work, I think you ought to consider whether it warrants it's own system up front. If you don't feel you have what it takes to do that, then let it be, or try to make it fit into an existing system. Otherwise, making the attempt to create a new system will give you insights to what you really want out of the idea. If you don't at least make the attempt, you risk destroying a possibly novel idea by trying to cram it into a system that doesn't fit it. It's the whole square-peg round-hole analogy all over again. Yeah, with enough effort, you could get that peg in there, but will it be recognizeable when you're done? And wouldn't it take as much effort to make a square hole?
By attempting to make your own system, you allow the idea to breathe and grow. Perhaps it will never blossom, but what have you lost? A little time which you might have otherwise spent trying to cram the idea into a mold that didn't fit, killing it that way. If on the other hand, you can create a system which *does* fit the idea, then you have found something wonderful, whether it ends up being just a game among you and your friends (like my homebrew Battletech and Dragon's Legend games) or whether you take it all the way to completion and publication (with a pretty map and a spiffy book, just like Riddle of Steel!*)

So in short, you ask? Well, alright, I'll try. When does an idea need a new system? I think the line can only be drawn by the possesser of the idea. As a rule of thumb, if someone decides to invent their own RPG before ever hearing of The Forge, and they're not trying to simply recreate a system/setting because they can't buy it (like my original efforts as mentioned above) but are trying (however poorly) to create something new, I think it's worth the effort. But then, perhaps I'm just a Liberal in Conservative's clothing.


*disclaimer: I like eye-candy on a website. Riddle of Steel had some damned good eye-candy, and an intriguing combat system to boot.

Ron Edwards wrote: I don't think indie street cred is an issue.

Ron Edwards wrote: The question, then, is whether people move to publish prematurely relative to their own publishing goals. I agree with Max - yes, they definitely, demonstrably do so. And your question is appropriate: how can I say that? Is that not merely a factor of my notions of "success" relative to theirs?

If we are talking about the Heartbreakers, then I think I present a pretty good argument for why my points (including the one Max has correctly abstracted from the essay) - internal evidence from the texts suggests some aspects of the designers' goals regarding both actual play and commerce, and I think that in most of those games, those goals are clearly not met.

Hey Fang,

We may end up disagreeing about this one:

"Isn't it a contradiction in terms that a designer on the indie-rpg forum explicitly and only wants to 'sell out?"'

If "explicitly and only," sure. That's why line-developers for WotC, if they did show up to that forum and join in with their designs in progress, would be chastised.

But you're not "explicitly and only." You're reserving your decision for later, depending on what happens: your own post presents the "either-or." That to me seems like a perfectly valid position to take, right here at the Forge, and right there in Indie Design (or in your case now, in your own forum).

Perhaps I make a sharper distinction between "appropriate for discussion on the Forge, given the site's charter," and "street cred," than you do. I enforce the first one; I frankly don't care for a moment about the second.

More generally, I think my main point is that Max's proposed topic applies to any game design process, whether creator-owned or not.

Best,
Ron

I am not a game designer. I don't want to be a game designer. I have no interest in developing (and testing, and fine-tuning, and testing, and fine-tuning, lather, rinse, repeat) new game mechanics. I might someday try to create my own setting, if I ever conquer my perfectionism to the point that I can actually finish a creative project instead of becoming frustrated enough to crumple it up and throw it away before it's even 1/4 complete, but I doubt that I will ever design a game of my own.

On the other hand, I am greatly frustrated by the incoherency of the rules that accompany some of my favorite published settings. This puts me in the position of frequently trying to amend broken games with house rules or wholesale porting of rule systems from unrelated games, which is just like game design except that, when you're done, you can't put your name on your work.

From my point of view, therefore, the answer to the question "When does an idea need a new system?" is, "When it's less frustrating to try to create a new system than to watch the idea be crushed beneath the weight of a system that doesn't support it."

{Edited to remove unnecessary self-deprecation.}
{Edited again to clean up BBCode lossage. Remember, boys and girls, the "Preview" button is your friend.}

Seth wrote: From my point of view, therefore, the answer to the question "When does an idea need a new system?" is, "When it's less frustrating to try to create a new system than to watch the idea be crushed beneath the weight of a system that doesn't support it."

When does an idea start to merit it's own rules set?

[quote+"Stivven"]After all a game rarely leaps fully formed from the head of the designer <grin>.

Oh, if it were that easy... ::smirks::

Seth L. Blumberg wrote:
> On the other hand, I am greatly frustrated by the incoherency of the rules that accompany some of my favorite published settings. This puts me in the position of frequently trying to amend broken games with house rules or wholesale porting of rule systems from unrelated games, which is just like game design except that, when you're done, you can't put your name on your work.

> From my point of view, therefore, the answer to the question "When does an idea need a new system?" is, "When it's less frustrating to try to create a new system than to watch the idea be crushed beneath the weight of a system that doesn't support it."

I agree totally with Seth. It's why I write my own game systems or mechanics, just to fix games that come pre-broken as it were. It's highly frustrating to play a new game and find that the game system doesn't support what the rest of the setting is about, or that "pulls" or "pushes" the game setting into reflecting the game mechanics reality.

Anyone still here?

I just discovered Ron's Heartbreaker article today, and read it with much interest. I then did a search on the forum, looking for more discussion of the subject and found this thread.

**The following may be totally influenced by my personal affection for Earthdawn**
Ron, you uttered what appeared to be a "throw-away" remark that ED was a "miserable failure". I can't let go so easily. It may be that since you are in Chicago, you are privy to far more than I am in this regard, but in what sense would you call Earthdawn a failure?

At the time, I thought it was a work of art. The system, in my opinion, was unique, albeit a bit clunky, and well suited to the game. I have enjoyed the game immensely as a tabletop and PBEM system. Earthdawn was also very high profile and, according to Lou Prosperi, profitable (I suspect this is where we have differing info). Granted the game was not maintained long-term, but was this more a case of Earthdawn being a miserable failure, or FASA deciding they had better ways to allocate their resources?

As for when a game needs a new system, I think that depends on many factors. The best answer I can give is when existing systems won't provide the results you want. For CotS, I had a clearly defined initial premise, and some assumptions and ideas I wanted to see incorporated. i don't consider myself a game designer, truthfully, and it seemed to me to be far easier to design from the ground up than to reingineer someone else's work.