Hello all!

Let me say that this forum would have been a great thing to have 12 years ago when I got into RPGs (and game design). I started working on my own game as soon as I figured out some basic concepts of roleplaying. It has been evolving slowly ever since, and yes, its a fantasy rpg.

Now my approach has perhaps been a bit different, in that I haven't played or studied a great many games off of which my own system was developed. So while some players might have commented "this bit is like game x", I most likely haven't seen game x. My not very broad playing background has been limited to mainly Warhammer FRPG and Palladium, and I have gone over GURPS Fantasy and AD&D. Most of my roleplaying time has been spent gm'ing my game. The reason for designing my own game, is that I knew I didn't like the concepts of D&D (and I couldn't afford buying all kinds of other systems in hopes that they would be more to my liking). I got my own group together (most of whom never played RPGs before or only had very minor exposure).

Fastforward to today. I'm revisting my game, but this time I have great resources on hand, such as the Forge. However, looking at my game I started to worry that it was simply too generic. That many would perhaps easily dismiss it as yet another D&D clone (or a revision of some other system). In effect, I have no obvious gimmick or hook that makes the game standout. So was I wasting my time? Building a game doomed to failure (much like Ron's essay on heartbreak games)? Time to reexamine this whole thing. I have found many interesting discussions here, in particular the ones that Pale Fire has been involved in as he is in the middle of this whole process himself.

First off, what do I want to achieve? I don't care about making money or even publishing this (someday it might make it on the web as a "take it if you want it" game). I'm doing this because a) I enjoy the design process, and b) perhaps I can introduce the game to a new group of players who will enjoy it. So if it does what I want, it can't really fail (or can it?).

Next, what does the game offer? What do the player do? I struggled a bit with this one. My initial response was, "well there is a lot of options, they can be explorers, or slay monsters, or be in a thief campaign. The game is very flexible"...this of course missed the point. I have a very evolved setting (over 10 years worth of effort), and a system that is design to work with it, so I had to look deeper. It was built on the following premise: characters in their own small way try to sway the balance between good and evil.

This still seems a bit vague, and the bit about good vs evil seems rather goofy. But it does capture some important bits. What I need to known is if this is sufficient as a starting descriptor.

The other apect I thought about was the "wow" factor. It comes on two fronts (based on playing the system). In many aspects the game is gritty, low fantasy, but highly magical, wonderous stuff exists. When the two contrasting elements combine, that provides some great moments. The other part is the player's use of the characters and rules. Think of the characters as tools, and utilizing that tool to its maximum effectiveness to create something cool is an important part of the game.

So my questions then. Where should I go from here to critically analyze my design? What should I look for and what other questions do I need to ask myself? Can I avoid the typical "great, another generic fantasy rpg" reaction without trying to distill the game down to a single gimmick?

Sorry for the long message, but I wanted lay down some ground work and give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

Hello, ks13.

Let be the first to say Welcome to The Forge.

From how you describe your game, I believe you're what I would call an amateur designer. This is different from Independant design, which is what the Forge is about. Not that I'm saying you're not welcome here. Oh heavens, no. I'm just making a distinction. An Amateur designer designs a game with little more abition than to have fun with their own group and that's about it. To me, amateur design is the lifesblood of the hobby. WIthout it, it simply becomes a consumer market. But enough of my soapboxing.

It's a little difficult to tell from what little you have said, but I would say that your game would probably be a "fantasy heartbreaker." First of all, you've mentioned that you haven't played very many games. If you were going to write, say, science fiction, you sould first read as much science fiction as you are able. This way, you will have a better handle on what works, what doesn't, what has become cliched and so on.

Since you haven't played or read (I assume) very many games, I suspect you've hit on several RPG design cliches. Cliches that make people say: "this bit is like game x." In fact, it probably resembles several games, and probably the ones you are most familiar with most closely.

You see, human beings are very imatative. We tend to do things the way we see others doing it with precious little variation. You've gleened from your experiences what you've called "some basic concepts of roleplaying." It bears mentioning here that in the early days of the hobby, after D&D had come out but before any other game did, there were such "basic concepts of roleplaying" as you must roll 3d6 for a character's stats, characters must be defined by a class system, and the game's name must be "(blank) & (blank)" preferably with illiteration.

What I'm trying to point out with this is not that you're game is all that bad, but it may be better. Better for you, that is. I suggest you go to the Forge resource library and check out all of the games there. Take your time. You don't have to read or play them all before dinner, but you need to build up your experience with how different people make their games. Stick to the free games, if money is an issue.

And while you're at it, see if you can figure out what parts of your game you are not happy with. WHat would you like to see work better? WHat part of your game to you dread having to deal with? You don't have to list these things here, but you should list them for yourself so you can identify problem areas and then come up with solutions.

First off, what do I want to achieve? I don't care about making money or even publishing this (someday it might make it on the web as a "take it if you want it" game). I'm doing this because a) I enjoy the design process, and b) perhaps I can introduce the game to a new group of players who will enjoy it. So if it does what I want, it can't really fail (or can it?).

I have a very evolved setting (over 10 years worth of effort), and a system that is design to work with it, so I had to look deeper. It was built on the following premise: characters in their own small way try to sway the balance between good and evil.

This still seems a bit vague, and the bit about good vs evil seems rather goofy. But it does capture some important bits. What I need to known is if this is sufficient as a starting descriptor.

The other apect I thought about was the "wow" factor. It comes on two fronts (based on playing the system). In many aspects the game is gritty, low fantasy, but highly magical, wonderous stuff exists. When the two contrasting elements combine, that provides some great moments. The other part is the player's use of the characters and rules. Think of the characters as tools, and utilizing that tool to its maximum effectiveness to create something cool is an important part of the game.

So my questions then. Where should I go from here to critically analyze my design? What should I look for and what other questions do I need to ask myself? Can I avoid the typical "great, another generic fantasy rpg" reaction without trying to distill the game down to a single gimmick?

Thanks for the detailed replied Jack. Much appreciated.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Hello, ks13.

Let be the first to say Welcome to The Forge.

From how you describe your game, I believe you're what I would call an amateur designer. This is different from Independant design, which is what the Forge is about.

Since you haven't played or read (I assume) very many games, I suspect you've hit on several RPG design cliches. Cliches that make people say: "this bit is like game x." In fact, it probably resembles several games, and probably the ones you are most familiar with most closely.

You see, human beings are very imatative. We tend to do things the way we see others doing it with precious little variation. You've gleened from your experiences what you've called "some basic concepts of roleplaying." It bears mentioning here that in the early days of the hobby, after D&D had come out but before any other game did, there were such "basic concepts of roleplaying" as you must roll 3d6 for a character's stats, characters must be defined by a class system, and the game's name must be "(blank) & (blank)" preferably with illiteration.

What I'm trying to point out with this is not that you're game is all that bad, but it may be better. Better for you, that is. I suggest you go to the Forge resource library and check out all of the games there. Take your time. You don't have to read or play them all before dinner, but you need to build up your experience with how different people make their games. Stick to the free games, if money is an issue.

And while you're at it, see if you can figure out what parts of your game you are not happy with. WHat would you like to see work better? WHat part of your game to you dread having to deal with? You don't have to list these things here, but you should list them for yourself so you can identify problem areas and then come up with solutions.

OK, first of all I've recently gotten a bit of a chip on my shoulder about in-depth settings. I've decided I dislike RPGs that require all that reading to be able to enjoy the game.

Next, I'll bet that you could take d20, GURPS, Hero, Palladium or whatever other system you can find and use it with your setting and it would work just fine. It might take a patch rule or two, but it will still work.

My point here is to address the "system that is designed to work with it" comment. I believe you'd be very hard-pressed to show me anything that could not be done using an existing RPG system in one way or another. I'm not saying you should junk your system and use d20. I am just saying that a particular system does little to emphasize a setting mood or whatever in itself. This is my opinion, and I'm sure several people will disagree with me on this.

I'm going to have to say no.This whole idea is fairly cliche. Painfully so, I would say. You could make this better by figuring out how the characters sway this balance and maybe what happens when they sway it. Just a suggestion there.

Terms like "gritty" have become all but meaningless to me from overuse.
Give me an example of a great moment provided by the two contrasting elements.

ks13 wrote: Hmm, I guess I didn't think about this. So if the Forge is for existing or aspiring publishers only, I might be in the wrong place

...It has been done to death, but not in a way that I like. Do I keep looking, or just do it myself? At this point, I would say there is no need to do my own design. Something out there surely does what I want...
...The problem I'm finding is that I don't want to look for a narrow game concept for its own sake, and saying "you create characters and shit happens" isn't the answer either. Or maybe it should be! The original answer to what do the characters do, was "anything they want (within the scope of the mechanics and setting)". What I really need to do is figure out if there is anything of value in here, and build off of that.

There's a thread on Kickers & Bangs here

You can also use the Search feature above.

Hi ks13 from Boston, and welcome to The Forge.

The answer to your question, "If it does what I want, it can't really fail (or can it?)" is an unequivocal NO. People here often say things like, "if your game works for you, then you don't need any help." Unfortunately some have interpreted that as a veiled put-down, as it it meant "if your standards are that low, then fine, we can't help you." It doesn't mean that. If I ever thought for one minute that it meant that, I'd be out of here so fast I'd have to lease a T2 line to keep up with the speed of my departure. So if you're waiting for someone to reply, "yeah, it sounds like the original game system you invented and you've been using successfully for the past twelve years is actually worthless crap, good thing you've got me (or us) to set you straight," I hope you have a very long wait. Meanwhile, allow me to congratulate you on your achievement.

The problem is, you say you're not concerned about publicaction but the questions you're asking are meaningful mainly in the context of intended publication. How could your system possibly be "doomed to failure" when you've already used it successfully, unless you mean failure as a published product? Without aspirations to publication, the only way your system can fail is if you use it and you or your players don't like the results. Publication opens up lots of additional failure modes that you've never had to worry about before. For example, if your system is too hard on the GM, that's no problem for you if you have the GM skills to make it work, but it means most other GMs who try to use it won't be able to get as much out of it as you do. For another example, generic-ness is not much of a drawback for playing your game, since many players want to play generic fantasy systems. But it would be a drawback for publishing your game, since most of those players don't want to buy (or even download for free) another generic fantasy system.

Is it possible that the real issue is that your system has done everything you wanted it to do in the past, but there are different things that you now want it to do that it cannot in its present form? Was there some characteristic of your last gaming group that you suspect a new group of players might not share, making the game less good a fit? Is there some reason, besides the possibility of publication which you say isn't an issue, that you now want to create a less "generic" system? Does your system really do everything you want it to, or does it only do everything you expect it to? That last question, I believe, is where your critical analysis should start. (In fact, I believe asking oneself that question frequently is one of the keys to creativity in general.)

"Distilling down to a single gimmick" as the alternative to "generic" is, in my opinion, an unfair characterization of the game design principles espoused here (though it does, unfortunately, have some truth in it where marketing is concerned). The alternative to generic-ness is not having a gimmick, it's having a design whose every detail supports the goals of play. Breaking the genre is not required: Hero Wars is about legendary heroism; The Riddle of Steel is about combat tactics; OtherKind is about elves, dwarves, and orcs; Draconic is about dragons. All of these are staples of "generic" fantasy. The difference is that these games dare to be really "about" those things instead of just using them for decoration.

Your game is about the balance between good and evil. Is that a lame premise? Not necessarily. Old fashioned "black and white" good versus evil is an element of fantasy that I've never seen done well in role playing games, which have a history of reducing good and evil to political shades of gray (in old school games -- for example, D&D made it shades of gray in the setting but kept it black and white in the mechanics, which reduced it to nonsense) or to an individual internal struggle (in Vampire and most games since including Sorceror). Sure that's more realistic in the first case, and more literary in the second, but there's something to be said for dark lords and vast armies massing in the east, especially in a game system where you appear to want to emphasize what most here would call "gamist" goals (utilitizing characters as tools to their maximum effectiveness). Create mechanics and a setting that really support the good versus evil trope, do that one thing well (and it doesn't have to be that, that's just an example), and your game will no longer be generic and it won't be a gimmick either. If you've already done that, I for one want to see it.

- Walt

Think of the characters as tools, and utilizing that tool to its maximum effectiveness to create something cool is an important part of the game.

Ahh, more great info. I'll check out the Kickers and Bangs stuff. Thanks for the link. In regards to having something to do in my game, that is never a problem. It just doesn't seem to fit neatly in a single sentence. I could ask the players, what do you want to do in this fantasy setting. They could say we want to be pirates, or we want to be part of merchant house running caravans along dangerous routes, or we're going to be part of a thiefs guild, or we want to be Mage slayers, etc...Any one of those I can see placing somewhere in my world and running with my rules. The thing is, that I personaly, would almost always tend to bring up the fact that there is some nasty evil shit going on, that 99% of the world populace does not want to know about. That is the one thing I believe my game would gravitate to. These elements could be ignored, but I feel that the true benefits of my setting would go to waste. Does this become cliched? It's certainly nothing new, but it never starts out as we are the good guys, let us go kick some evil butt. Here is how things would go down:

1) Character creation - it certainly is old school style in that it is fairly involved and the character concept grows as everything is being put together. It is not a minimalist approach. Remeber, I started with players whose rpg understanding was very limited, and this helped out a fair bit. Thus it may be a dinosaur, but I still find it very enjoyable. During the process there is enough info and hooks generated that the player will already have options as to what he wants to explore once the character is in the game.
2) Using the ideas in the character generation and some sort of motivating factor - the characters are assembled and thrown into action.
3) Initialy, the game involves character and setting exploration and dealing with immediate problems. On the big scale they might be mundane, but they quickly lead to more involved conflicts.
4) The underlying "darkness" is revealed, and the sence of this balance is introduced. The feel is that one small incident can start an avalanche and everything is lost. The characters are not always fully aware of this, and their goals are not explicitly "save the world". They just got stuck in middle of something.

The issue is, that there is nothing inherent in the rules (right now) that says you get to step 4. And I'm really thinking of giving this center stage. Forget the possibilities of unrelated adventures, focus on this conflict.

While publishing is not driving motivator, I want to take things beyond where they sit now. So thinking in terms of publication might get me moving in the right direction.

Your game is about the balance between good and evil. Is that a lame premise? Not necessarily. Old fashioned "black and white" good versus evil is an element of fantasy that I've never seen done well in role playing games, which have a history of reducing good and evil to political shades of gray (in old school games -- for example, D&D made it shades of gray in the setting but kept it black and white in the mechanics, which reduced it to nonsense) or to an individual internal struggle (in Vampire and most games since including Sorceror). Sure that's more realistic in the first case, and more literary in the second, but there's something to be said for dark lords and vast armies massing in the east, especially in a game system where you appear to want to emphasize what most here would call "gamist" goals (utilitizing characters as tools to their maximum effectiveness). Create mechanics and a setting that really support the good versus evil trope, do that one thing well (and it doesn't have to be that, that's just an example), and your game will no longer be generic and it won't be a gimmick either. If you've already done that, I for one want to see it.

Hi ks13,

And welcome to the Forge.

QUICK SIDE POINT
Amateur-whatever vs. publisher-whatever is completely irrelevant. Jack apparently free-associated a bit while typing and the thread got a bit whacked for a minute. Your opening post and your general presentation of your game are totally appropriate here - there is no "category" of publisher that matters here except creator-owned vs. not.

Jack, if you want to talk about that stuff (categories of publishing, "amateur," etc), which sounded pretty damn interesting when you explained it, then start a new thread in Publishing.

RETURNING TO THE REGULAR POST

Here are my thoughts at the moment.

1) It sounds to me as if you're ... well, all set. You like your game, you like the play style, and you like how it works out. My question is, what is your specific need, here at the Forge, at this point in the game's development? Depending on your answer, you could do any of the following.

- If the game exists as any sort of document, you might make some or all of it available for us to check out. This will bring up all manner of critique, so it might be helpful to specify what sort of issues you want to know about.

- Ask for playtesting and set up some kind of response system on a website or a mailing list.

- Scout about for people who can help you put it into a more "solid" format (e.g. PDF) or maybe help with layout, maybe get some art, etc.

2) I suggest putting GNS aside for the moment - already a whole bunch of misconceptions have appeared in the thread that ought to be expunged, notably dice = Gamism, minimalist character creation = Narrativism, and others. All that's gumming up our conversation. Just ... toss it, for now. Read the big essay if you want, ask GNS questions in the GNS Forum if you want, and so on. We can get back to how it might or might not apply to your game later.

Best,
Ron

Another trait of the Fantasy Heartbreakers was the strength of the setting. The main problem with a highly detailed experience in my opinion in the potential for unintended conflict between the character concepts and the setting.

This is made worse when character creation is highly detailed. It can lead to tedious handholding to avoid breaking the suspension of disbelief (you're gonna have to explain why an Arbu noble isn't proficient in leatherworking).

Strong character creation pairs well with creating the setting in play (or through the character creation sessions).
Weak character creation and strong setting pairs well by letting the characters develop into the setting.
Strong character creation and setting can create serious conflicts and seems to work best with characters who are outsiders.
I've never seen a weak character creation paired with weak setting, but it would seem to have the "Magical Mystery Tour" problem Jack mentioned (I could have sworn that quote was from that parody movie).

Thats a great piece of insight Bailey, I'd never made that connection before but it makes alot of sense. Probably deserves a thread of its own.

I'd be interested in hearing how KS's game fits in this.

KS, you mentioned that you could do pirates or merchant caravans et.al. Would this happen:
1) using your developed character creation system (which is perfectly fine dinosaur or no...it certainly isn't "bad") would players create pirate characters, you'd find a piece of the world that is open to pirate characters, and then much of the setting of that piece would be developed in reaction to the players choices.

2) The players want to play pirates so you'd select a location of the world that is already highly developed and use the existing setting detail of that section to guide the character creation process.

Hey,

Um, Ralph, Bailey's point about setting/character is a re-statement of one of mine, almost verbatim. It's been around since my early days on GO and has been repeated on dozens of threads.

Best,
Ron

It's definitely an interesting topic. I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion of Rich/Sketchy Character and Rich/Sketchy Setting combinations on Gaming Outpost in late 2000, I think. But their search engine seems to be broken, so I can't point you at the exact threads.

Paul

Sorry, I didn't remember where I'd heard it from, and thought it was from one of my GMs back when I was in school. In any case it looked to fit this particular discussion.

Hi Bailey,

No problem here - I have no objection to statin' the ideas, especially because they do apply to this thread really well. The only thing I wanted to correct was Ralph's perception that this was a new concept.

Anyway, sorry, ks13 - got off on a reference-tangent here.

Back to the point we go.

Best,
Ron

Paul Czege wrote: It's definitely an interesting topic. I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion of Rich/Sketchy Character and Rich/Sketchy Setting combinations on Gaming Outpost in late 2000, I think. But their search engine seems to be broken, so I can't point you at the exact threads.

Paul

Ron Edwards wrote: Um, Ralph, Bailey's point about setting/character is a re-statement of one of mine, almost verbatim. It's been around since my early days on GO and has been repeated on dozens of threads.

ks13,

Again, I deeply apologize for the fact that we seem unable to focus on your game, although everyone is being great about this side-point.

To apply the point that Bailey made:

Which seems to work best for you?

1) Start with deep/defined character and develop the setting as play is prepped and carried out?

2) Start with deep/defined setting and develop the characters (from basic/sketchy start) as play is prepped and carried out?

[Please note that in the two options above, I am not talking about how powerful the characters start or become. I'm talking about how individualized and intense they are. Same for setting - I'm not talking about how good or interesting the setting is, but whether it's chock-full of stuff to do that's already laid down in writing.]

3) Start with both characters and setting as intensely developed before play as possible?

4) Start with both characters and setting in a fairly sketchy or quickly-defined state?

So, 1-4: which do ya think, for this game, this time?

Best,
Ron

A few things to address:

Why am seeking input? I have an opportunity (and desire) to reexamine the system and make revisions. The game worked well enough in its previous form, but from mechanics side of things I still want it to be more streamlined and elegant. More consistency in mechanics to avoid "this rule covers situation A, and this one handles B". The biggest problem was that some rules got too convoluted over time, and during play it was difficult to keep track of everything. I don't want charts and constant referencing, but neither am I going for a rules-light thing.

The other aspect is my dilema of a general world with a wide range of gaming opportunities, or a specific hook (so that you know when you play this game you will do.....). One method am finding simply too vague with no direction or purpose, the other might become a bit too restrictive. Right now, I think the problem is that I'm trying to use a concept (good vs evil) thats not presented in a solid form. I need to either make it more sublime (games can be run in the setting without it ever coming up), or bring it to the front (you will always be involved in this struggle).

Onto the tangent, which is actually very helpful since at first didn't clearly see what Baily was driving at. If I got this right, the suggestion is that if the setting is so detailed as to be restrictive to the type of character concepts possible, then a detailed character creation can result in characters that don't fit. Isn't this a matter of simply limiting your concept during character creation to make sure that it doesn't clash with the setting? Isn't this what templates and classes had done all along?

As far my game is concerned, and to answer Valamir, the situation would be:

1) using your developed character creation system (which is perfectly fine dinosaur or no...it certainly isn't "bad") would players create pirate characters, you'd find a piece of the world that is open to pirate characters, and then much of the setting of that piece would be developed in reaction to the players choices.

I have an opportunity (and desire) to reexamine the system and make revisions. The game worked well enough in its previous form, but from mechanics side of things I still want it to be more streamlined and elegant.

The other aspect is my dilema of a general world with a wide range of gaming opportunities, or a specific hook (so that you know when you play this game you will do.....). One method am finding simply too vague with no direction or purpose, the other might become a bit too restrictive. Right now, I think the problem is that I'm trying to use a concept (good vs evil) thats not presented in a solid form.

ks13 wrote: The players know enough about the setting to allow their characters to act in a consistent manner (for example, you just don't go around screamin the names of the old gods) and I look to them to help create some details. For example, if they arrive at the home city of one the characters, who then proclaims he know of a place serving the finest steak this side of the ocean, then it doesn't mean this place doesn't exist just because I don't have it written down (I would of course expect the player at this point to continue, help supply a suitable name, name of the owner, etc. I would work with him to make sure it fits the aspects of the game that I have prepared such as the location. So instead of the exact location, the player says "its not in the best part of town, but don't let that fool you", I know where to place this newly created inn. - this was also one of those "cool" things I referred to earlier). So provided that players respect certain aspects of the game world, the exact details of their character concept can be maintained.

ks13 wrote: ... The game worked well enough in its previous form, but from mechanics side of things I still want it to be more streamlined and elegant. ... I don't want charts and constant referencing, but neither am I going for a rules-light thing.

The other aspect is my dilema of a general world with a wide range of gaming opportunities, or a specific hook (so that you know when you play this game you will do.....).

Onto the tangent,...If I got this right, the suggestion is that if the setting is so detailed as to be restrictive to the type of character concepts possible, then a detailed character creation can result in characters that don't fit.

Valamir wrote:
Thats great. One thing that's become more common place especially in Forge-influenced games, is to include as part of the game system itself mechanics that specifically give players this kind of directoral power (thats what Forge jargon would call the above). In other words, instead of leaving it up to an individual GM to give or not give the players this ability, this ability is explicitly spelled out in the rules.

I know exactly what you are talking about regarding streamlined elegance. Excellent goal, IMO. And I can understand you ceoncern about general versus specific goals as well. We can help with this stuff.

The only problem is that we can't get to specifics unless we know something about the system. I would suggest full disclosure. At the very least we need some basics. Is chargen point based, level and classes, carreer path? Is resolution class based, skill + attribute, dice pools (including where those exceptions pop up)? Do you have any metagame stuff like Karma Points? What's the reward system like, what does it reward, and how does it reward it? Rules for continued character development (sometimes different from reward systems)? Anything else that seems pertinent.

Without this stuff, it's hard to comment.

As Ron said, I wouldn't worry about the jargon yet; character exploration and setting exploration can be looked at later. But we can sertainly address what seems to be your major concern if you just give us some details.

Good versus Evil is a great topic for play, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I like your slant so far, and what you 've said sounds promising as a goal. Let us see what you have and we can give hints on how to get better results toward that goal.

Mike