Topic: System Choices
Started by: Michael Hopcroft
Started on: 12/18/2002
Board: Publishing
On 12/18/2002 at 5:07am, Michael Hopcroft wrote:
System Choices
I'm trying to choose the system for my next game and it isn't easy. My distribution arrangement for HeartQuest heavily ties me into FUDGE, as its publisher is backing me in a big way. However, I had originally planned to use Gold Rush games' Action! System for my new game.
Unfortunately there have not been many Action! System games released yet, and their marketing punch has yet to be determined. Meanwhile D20 Modern is out and D20 games in general continue to sell like hotcakes. (Before there were hotcakes, what did hotcakes sell like?) So I'm torn between crreative issues, pure market forces, and the dreaded invisible hand that threatens to sweep me away before I can even make a decision.
I think the point of game publishing is to publish games, but I'm much better at backgrounds than original, balanced systems. So the idea of open licences where I can borrow the mechanics and concentrate on the stuff I like to do is nirvana for me as a game designer. However, I don't know just what I will accomplish if I don't make a decision soon, or who I should get advice from on this very significant matter.
On 12/18/2002 at 2:00pm, Maurice Forrester wrote:
RE: System Choices
As a Fudge fan, I'd like to see more games released for Fudge to increase visibility of the system. But that doesn't really help you, I guess. It would be interesting to hear why you were thinking of going with Action! System for your new game. Articulating those reasons might help clarify the issue.
On 12/18/2002 at 3:46pm, wyrdlyng wrote:
RE: System Choices
Michael Hopcroft wrote: Meanwhile D20 Modern is out and D20 games in general continue to sell like hotcakes.
"The dark side is quicker, easier, more seductive."
I wouldn't advise choosing a system for your game just because it's selling well. If it's not really a good fit with your creation it'll seem tacked on and forced.
Michael Hopcroft wrote: I think the point of game publishing is to publish games, but I'm much better at backgrounds than original, balanced systems. So the idea of open licences where I can borrow the mechanics and concentrate on the stuff I like to do is nirvana for me as a game designer
I personally would advocate creating your setting/background material and then, if you choose to not create your own system, look for the system which is closest to what you envision. Choosing a system first and then designing background/setting generally leads to trouble and poor game design (unless you're one the elite gaming geniuses).
In the end it's up to you (your company, your game) but as a consumer and longtime player, I can tell you what I have seen and experienced.
As an aside, if you do go with a precreated system, I would throw my vote towards Fudge also. The system is simple and easy to customize to whatever you're working on. And don't be afraid to customize it. Heartquest is a good game but it could have been made a bit stronger by customizing the rules a bit further to mesh with the world of Shoujo more tightly. (But that might be another post.)
On 12/18/2002 at 4:02pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: System Choices
Hi Michael,
I'll probably get jumped on by any number of people for saying this, but the "evidence" that D20 system will improve your sales is highly suspect - at least as broadly applied as many people do. It would probably be a fine idea for a well-established company, and it was a fine idea at the ground floor, years ago ... but for Seraphim (and this is a fully individualized judgment on my part), I'd suggest staying with Fudge for a variety of reasons.
1) Fudge is still here. It's been around for a long time, and it's still here. D20 has yet to prove itself in terms of time - the height of its "spike" is no indicator in this regard.
2) Ann Dupuis is a professional, clear-minded person whose business integrity is a byword. Do well by her and Fudge, and the support and presence she lends to Seraphim is worth much, much more than a few extra distributor orders for a few months.
Best,
Ron
On 12/18/2002 at 6:52pm, Jeffrey Miller wrote:
RE: System Choices
Ron Edwards wrote: I'll probably get jumped on by any number of people for saying this, but the "evidence" that D20 system will improve your sales is highly suspect - at least as broadly applied as many people do. It would probably be a fine idea for a well-established company, and it was a fine idea at the ground floor, years ago ... but for Seraphim (and this is a fully individualized judgment on my part), I'd suggest staying with Fudge for a variety of reasons.
The only jumping I'd do is in your defense, Ron. This sentiment (re the profitability and success of non-WotC d20 releases) is the common thread I've been hearing for the past 8-9 months.
1) Fudge is still here. It's been around for a long time, and it's still here. D20 has yet to prove itself in terms of time - the height of its "spike" is no indicator in this regard.
As much I as I enjoy FUDGE, what factors, IYO, are causing it to not break out? Is it a transitional system between "classic" gaming system styles and looser systems?
On 12/18/2002 at 7:04pm, wyrdlyng wrote:
RE: System Choices
I just want to second Ron's concerns about the D20 market. The D20 system has been out for almost 2 and a half years at this point.
(Disclaimer: The following is from speaking with several game store owners.)
At this point the D20 market seems to be settling so that the established names (Green Ronin, Sword & Sorcery, Mongoose, Penumbra, etc.) are the main sales draws while the smaller names are losing ground. Attempting to be more than a blip on the "D20 radar" is growing more and more difficult. So unless you already have an established name or are coming out with something so cool it hurts, trying to tap into the D20 vein is not a promise of sales.
This is why I wince so hard whenever I see a press release of some new D20 company trying to get their foot in the door this late in the game.
On 12/18/2002 at 7:36pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: System Choices
Hi there,
As a general rule, I don't see that "breaking out" is an important issue. I've said many times that business success, for me, is clearly defined as meeting and exceeding production costs with returns. It doesn't have anything to do with selling more than any other company, or with occupying any particular percent of the available market.
Regarding Fudge in particular, I think that well-designed, generic Simulationist systems are a fringe/niche product - which is a good thing, in many ways. However, a widespread assumption among gamers is that such systems must be the broadest-appeal, because they can do "anything" (which they cannot). This is a pretty big GNS topic, though, so if anyone wants to discuss it, we should take it to that forum.
Now, none of the above paragraph applies to Heartquest or to any setting-focused application of Fudge. These games, in my view, have a great deal of "draw" value, as their love of the genre they portray instantly communicates itself to people who already like it.
Best,
Ron
On 12/18/2002 at 9:04pm, Jeffrey Miller wrote:
RE: System Choices
Ron Edwards wrote: As a general rule, I don't see that "breaking out" is an important issue. I've said many times that business success, for me, is clearly defined as meeting and exceeding production costs with returns. It doesn't have anything to do with selling more than any other company, or with occupying any particular percent of the available market.
I think that's an important measure (can I pay the bills) for success, but I do have to admit to a certain romantic longing for seeing games "go through the roof". Luckily for my own projects, I recognize they're micro-niche games and aren't going to sell a jillion copies, but I'm positive I can meet the costs of publishing.
On 12/18/2002 at 9:08pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: System Choices
wyrdlyng wrote: I wouldn't advise choosing a system for your game just because it's selling well. If it's not really a good fit with your creation it'll seem tacked on and forced.It may shock some people who have been reading the d20 threads to find out that I agree with Alex wholeheartedly.
It's what I call the "no love" factor -- companies piling on the d20 banner just because it's "popular". Unless you think d20 is a good fit for what you're doing, and you genuinely like the system, don't go for it. Pinnacle made this mistake, and it shows in the general lack of quality in their d20 efforts. (Flip through a copy of Deadlands, then a copy of Deadlands d20 some time. You'll see what I mean.)
I'd also agree with Ron and Alex that the marketing power of d20 isn't as good as people would have you believe. Speaking as someone who talks to and plays with d20 gamers and is himself one, at this point in the market people are developing loyalties to certain d20 lines, and being picky about where their gaming dollar goes.
I'd also agree with others that you should stick with FUDGE, unless Action! has a rule or methodology that absolutely fits your game like a glove. (And since Action! is nothing more than warmed-over Fuzion, I kinda doubt this is the case. At the very least, if there's something in Action! you think is really cool, why not adapt it to FUDGE, which you're already familiar with?)
On 12/28/2002 at 5:46am, Michael Hopcroft wrote:
I feel I owe you my decision
I decided that, for at least one version of Fuzz, I would stick with Action!. I didn't want to waste the work thatg was already done, I want to see the new system succeed, and distribution I'll worry about later.
Right now I'm planning my usual dual-pronged approach of e-book release and either POD or something similar. I don't think I cna justify another full-scale press run of ANY book at this time. Besides, it's time people got used to buying electronic games and I think I can get some good mileage out of the form.