It was mentioned over in the "Publishing" aspect of the forums that Sorcerer was not complete because it had no sourcebooks. It struck me as odd. Sorcerer doesn't need any sourcebooks!

Then I thought about it some more. Is Orkworld incomplete because it has no sourcebooks? No. I could name other examples, but let me change directions here.

If something like Sorcerer and Orkworld is considered incomplete, maybe it's not accidental? I recall how in Orkworld the map is left blank in areas so that the GMs can fill in the gaps. Perhaps it's the same with Sorcerer, whether it be deliberately done that way or unconciously.

Urgh, it raises my ire to hear people call complete games incomplete just for the reason of no sourcebooks.

Well I believe it stems from the fact that the person wanted more in the book that wasn't there. (just a note I haven't read Sorcerer or Orkworld) Perhaps they were looking for more info in certian areas etc.

Personally I don't see this as incomplete, just time for me to get creative and do it on my own or email the author about if its really bugging me. I was told by someone a day ago that not everything was in Little Fears that needed to be and shouldn't printed up yet. When I asked what he mentioned an experience system, more detailed game system and a few other things. I about fell over at this, the game system is meant to be simple and how much can a child expand as a character system wise, what little there is I can think up.

Its all a matter of a persons view on what they want in a game.

Well thats my pennies.

Enh... don't let it bother you. No, really. I know it sounds like a simple "solution", but it's really the case of not being able to please all of the people all of the time.

In my own writing experience, I've had to face being yelled at for giving people TOO much to work with, not ENOUGH to work with. Of railroading them with plot, of leaving them stranded with out a clue as to what comes next. It's pretty much a no win situation: no mater what you give people, some one is going to want more/want less.

I happen to think Sorcerer is fine as is, but I'm an olde skool GURPSer. I feel that less definition is better to let me make up what I want. Give me the rules, give me the mechanics, then step back. But, I also know girls who want Every Single Detail and if they have to make something up on their own -- Heaven Forbid! They somehow feel they're not playing the game if everything is presented to them in a nice little sidebar. It's sort of like people who can't manipulate a metaplot. Hey, if this part doesn't work for your group? Change it! The Metaplot Police aren't going to break down your door! But, I digress. That's my pet peeve and we were talking about yours here. ; )

It's a style thing. Let it go. Don' worry 'bout it. Smile, nod, and then tune them out. If it works for you, that's the important thing. : )

On 2001-08-20 19:35, Laura Bishop wrote:
Enh... don't let it bother you. No, really. I know it sounds like a simple "solution", but it's really the case of not being able to please all of the people all of the time.

I think it is, however, possible to have "incomplete" games. If the game is set up in such a way as to require a particular thing and doesn't provide it (the rules for regaining Pathos in some printings of Wraith, for example) then it is incomplete.

It's one of those player expectation/game-set expectation things, I suppose.

Hey,

I should like to point out that "incomplete" is not defined, because no one knows what a "complete" RPG is. Or more accurately, what anyone FEELS is complete or not is totally irrelevant.

Yes, I could poll any forum you name about what people FEEL is or isn't complete. The result, however well articulated, would be vapor.

Along with "balance," "realism," "immersion," and "supported," "completeness" is one of those vague-ass topics in RPG culture that results in tons of smoke but very little light, if any.

If we are discussing a proto-game here on the Forge, and someone calls it "incomplete," he or she should be focusing on the goals and design philosophy of that game. Yes, it may be incomplete in those terms, in which case such a comment is a worthy criticism. But if it's based on the person's "gut feeling" of what "any RPG" must have to be complete, it is just smoke.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-08-29 13:41, Ron Edwards wrote:

If we are discussing a proto-game here on the Forge, and someone calls it "incomplete," he or she should be focusing on the goals and design philosophy of that game. Yes, it may be incomplete in those terms, in which case such a comment is a worthy criticism. But if it's based on the person's "gut feeling" of what "any RPG" must have to be complete, it is just smoke.

Best,
Ron