note: although there is a system contained herein, I am posting this more as a matter of general theory. Any comments about that design, if any, should go in the appropriate forum

Since the publication of the two Fantasy Heartbreaker essays, there has been some on-again, off-again discussion about fantasy heartbreakers. A good deal of the discussion has been about what is a fantasy heartbreaker. What are its attributes?

A heartbreaker, fantasy or otherwise, is cliched game design. Some attention had been give to a trait noted in the articles, that each of the example games have some small innovation contained within. I think this is just an accident of birth. It’s not the good bit, but the tired design of the rest of the game that breaks the heart.

Dictionary.com defines cliché as:

*A trite or overused expression or idea

Trite is defined as:

1. Lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed.
2. Archaic. Frayed or worn out by use.

This does not explain the origin of cliché. Cliché comes from inexperience. The best advice give to anyone who wishes to write is to read. Read much. Read often. By reading, you learn more about the craft of writing and story as well as what has gone on before so you do not tread the same path.

My prime example of cliché is the Dungeons & Dragons movie. The writers, Topper Lilien and Carroll Cartwright, had no clue about the genre for D&D. It just wasn’t their thing. The director had them watch a bunch of movies in the hopes of teaching them. Unfortunately, renting a bunch of movies for the weekend does not give you the depth of knowledge necessary to come up with something fresh. Many scenes were recognizable for which movie they were stolen from. Consider the thieves’ guild “maze.” Each trap was directly ripped of from one of the three Indiana Jones movies, no matter how they altered the particulars. (Granted most of those traps were originally stolen from the old cliffhangers, but I’ll get to that) This is how clichés are formed.

Unfortunately, cliché is a slippery customer. As the definitions state, cliché is something that occurs with use over time. That is, a cliché was fresh and original once and after a period of disuse can become so again. Also after a great deal of time, and handled properly, a cliché can become classic, a genre convention. (This is why the slowly crushing ceiling in Temple of Doom is not cliched. Such devices are a convention of the genre. This same trap was cliched in D&D in the context of the other two trap, obviously ripped-off from the other movies) In other words, what is cliché or not is highly subjective. To someone unfamiliar with the historical context may think Tunnels & Trolls was ripping off the idea of spell points from GURPS. However, to someone similarly ignorant of the history may find that using the Strength stat as spell point to be sufficiently fresh on the spell point concept. It is a matter of opinion whether something is worn out or not. It also helps to have the proper historical context in mind. Anderson’s Three Hearts and Three Lions may seem like a D&D cliché unless the reader understands the novel was first published in 1953. In this light, what would be seen as cliched retread would be “Ah, so that’s how it was originally done.”

In conclusion, to be able to design a heartbreaker, the designer must have very limited experience with roleplaying games and just as limited a concept of what an RPG can be or how it can be done. This means that most of the regulars here on the Forge have little chance of really coming up with a fantasy heartbreaker. Simply put, we know too much. We have a deeper understanding of how an RPG is put together and instinctively avoid the clichés that plague a true heartbreaker and wind up with something fresh, or our enthusiasm wanes as we realize just how flawed the concept is. It is very similar to a billionaire businessman attempting to create a start-up company with only $2,000. To such a person who is already successful, the idea of going back to grass roots can be appealing. However, it is likely that the temptation to draw on further assets beyond the original $2,000 would be too great should he run into trouble, especially if he’s the sort who thinks about his employees who count on him for their paychecks. Moreover, he would have the wealth of knowledge that he has as a successful businessman to draw on. He is simply not someone attempting a start-up company on a shoestring, but a billionaire pretending he is.

All of this says that making a fantasy heartbreaker would be extremely difficult. Difficult, but not impossible. The biggest temptation besides trying not to make a better game is to not lose interest and turn one’s attention to other, more worthwhile pursuits. This finally brings me to the title of this piece as I walk through step-by-step the method for developing a fantasy heartbreaker. I will most likely only give you only the broad strokes vs. a truly complete game, but I’ll try to make it as playable as possible. You be the judge as to whether it breaks your heart or not.

STEP 1: DEFINE THE CONTEXT

As noted above, a heartbreaker comes from limited knowledge. Admittedly, my own knowledge and experience is probably the most limited of anyone on the Forge, but it’s still too much to design a heartbreaker. To aid this, I’ll set myself some limits. Arbitrary limits, not unlike the $2,000, but limits nevertheless. To this end, I’ll pretend I know little beyond the red and blue book Basic D&D Basic & Expert Sets, the ones with the Erol Otis covers. This should be sufficient. Also, since I recently got the first season of Xena Warrior Princess on DVD, I’ll add this to the mix.

So what I’ve defined for myself is a fantasy game. D&D fantasy, of course, but fantasy nevertheless. Adding Xena to this adds an additional dimension. First of all, it reflects ancient Greece the way First Knight reflects Arthurian legend. Some of the names are the same. Also, due to budget constraints, most of the bad guys are human. Other races and monsters do appear, but rarely. This has me thinking of evil warlord popping up with their nameless minions with the occasional monster. Also, part of the appeal of that show was the warrior woman and the possible girl-girl relationship. The concept of the warrior woman, while not unexplored shows promise for something really special.

As you can see, already I’m drifting outside of my self-imposed limitations. Focusing on female characters can go one of two ways. Either toward the stereotypical gamer geek chainmail bikini possibly devolving further to the juvenile misogyny of FATAL or I could come up with something truly thought-provoking about what it’s like to be a woman in a profession usually reserved for men. So I don’t stray too soon from my intended goal, I shall go for the Chainmail Bikini. That’s is a spiffy working title, wouldn’t you say? So, forget about the interesting conflict of being a woman in a world where women are second-class citizens or worse and say hello to where being a woman means it says “Sex: female” on the character sheet.

STEP 2: CONSIDER THE MECHANICS

Now that I have a vague handle on what I’m going to be making, I want to turn my attention to the dice-rolling techniques. Although I want to primarily draw upon D&D for inspiration, I don’t want to simply re-present the same rules. This is completely possible even with a heartbreaker. I can present completely different rules that still offer nothing new.

My first impulse is to use only six-sided dice. Such dice are plentiful and the average household should have a set form a copy of Monopoly or a similar board game. After all, this game will be so cool, it will be played by all kinds of people, not just those who are already playing RPGs, right?

Right.

The problem is you don’t get much of a spread with two six-siders. Not the same spread as a twenty-sided dice. A dice pool would work, but I decided not to. First of all, I can assume everyone has at least two six-sided dice. It is too much to assume they may have ten. Second, dice pools are a bit too innovative for what I’m trying to accomplish here. D&D has simple roll-to-hit, roll-to-damage system. My goal is to reflect this while not simply copying this. The trick is to do this with only two dice. I’m thinking of doing away with the damage roll and either having fixed damage or some kind of quality of success criteria based on the to-hit roll. Exactly how, I am not sure yet.

STEP 3: DEFINING A CHARACTER

I could just mimic the D&D stats but I want something a little different. To be frank, the stats in D&D meant little to the actual character. It was the figured stats like the Saving Throws, THAC0, and so on that really mattered. D&D3e redefined the Saving Throws as Reflexes, Fortitude, and Will. The third edition is outside of what I am supposed to draw on, but I think that if this was obvious enough to Jonathan Tweet, then by god, it is obvious to me.

Therefore, I’ll define the stats as Luck, Wits, Strength, and Prowess. I was going to use Skill, but I didn’t want two stats starting with the same letter. So I’ll use Prowess. I want only four stats so that I can have a stat for every possibility, yet not have too many so it’s unclear which stats apply.

I am tempted to use a skill system but I think I won’t for two reasons:

1) D&D didn’t have one. Not the basic set, anyway.
2) That would overcomplicate what could be a very simple design.

In either case, I don’t want to do it. Coming up with a skill list is a lot of thankless work. Besides, Xena always seemed to have whatever skills she needed in a situation. She knew more about first aid than a professional healer. She knew more about the art of warfare than the great warlords. And she baked a mean cherry pie. This will work for Chainmail Bikini.

STEP 4: DEFINING CHARACTER IN THE MECHANICS

Now that I’ve got an idea of what mechanics I plan to use and how the character is defined, it’s time to define the character in terms of those mechanics. This stage is crucial and chances are good I’ll rethink both mechanics and character before I’m totally happy with it.

I am back to my original problem of how the dice rolling works. I have my dice, but no idea of how to read it when I throw the dice. I could just have a simple set-up of increasing number = increasing skill and so on, but this totally ignores the bell curve of rolling 2d6. No, doing this would cross the line from heartbreaker too pathetic. As out of place as it may be, I need a weird dice-rolling technique.

So, for each stat I’ll give a number between 2 and 12. The idea is to roll this number on 2d6. This means that if your warrior maiden is poisoned or drugged, she needs to roll her Strength on 2d6 or succumb to the effects. The stats are levelable up to level three. This broadens the target number by the level. That is, a stat of 7 level 1 needs a 6, 7 or 8 on 2d6.

Having a specific target number creates a kind of horseshoe effect. In a situation where many are rolling, the one who gets closest to their target number gains the advantage. Advantage is a non-lethal short-termed bonus to the next roll. I see the stat sliding up and down the scale because of this. Seven is the most desired stat since it will be rolled the most often per law of averages. Also, the levels will have full effect since it does not wrap around. (E.g. with a stat of 2 level 3 the target number is 2, 3, 4, 5) This means that the stats are not so ever increasing. Sure a 7 will be more successful, but if the dice come up snake eyes, you’re still screwed. The effect is that even a stat of 2 is a useful stat, so long as it is rolled.

While I’m on the subject, I should give a thought to how the character is created. Rather than some kind of random roll, I think I’ll use a 2, 3, 4, 5 method. That is, one stat at 2, one at 3 and so on. A stat may be lowered to raise another. No stat can be below 2. Once the stats are decided, the player can decide to “mirror” any stat they choose. That is, a 2 can become a 12, a 3 can become an 11, and etc. whatever the mirror is drawing a line on 7.

2—3—4—5—6—7—8—9—10—11—12

Following this, no two characters will be alike, or so the theory goes.

STEP 5: THOUGHTS ON PROTAGONISM

So far, I’ve done a terrible job of staying with my own guidelines with this mechanics. Now I’m going to have to put some thought into protagonism. I did not state I would have access to Forge jargon, but this needs to be considered nevertheless. I would have some inklings of this concept from D&D with the class system. Every D&D character has a niche as defined by their class. So far all I have is warrior chicks all over the place. You could have an especially strong or witty or lucky or skillful chick, but they are all the same nevertheless.

It would seem I have painted myself into a corner on this one. I’m not thrilled with the idea of having classes, female clerics and whatnot. But I think I will give a bit more thought to the concept of alignments.

Typically, I don’t like alignments. Never did. They never did what I thought they should do. I am also aware that this is a road already walked by Paladin, in a sense. But I think this will be interesting. I see a scale from Holy to Profane. Being at either end gains you certain abilities as you gain the favor of certain gods. However, the scale has to be skewed thus:

HOLY 7—6—5—4—3—2—1—2—3—4—5—6—7 PROFANE

To perform miracles, the dice roll compares to where you are on this scale. At 1, you obviously cannot perform any miracles. This scale is not levelable. Bikini Master (note: I think I’ll forgo an abbreviation) keeps track of good and evil acts performed during the session and based on whichever comes out on top, the character moves in that direction on the scale.

I also think that as a character moves towards the extremes, the gods themselves are constantly involved in the character’s lives.

Perhaps this isn’t a very good solution to Protagonism after all. But it does add an addition dimension to the characters.

STEP 6: NOW ABOUT MAGIC

Magic systems are where many heartbreakers really shine. Lately, I have been too heavily influenced by freeform gaming to ignore it. Thus I’ll make a more-or less freeform magic system but with some constraints.

First of all, each spell gets a flashy name. This is more for color than anything else, but the name should imply the following constraints in some way.

A spell favors a particular effect.
A spell has a particular weakness.

Any spell can produce any effect desired. However, each spell favors a particular effect. So you could use Joli Robin’s Flaming Beard to produce a wall of ice, but it favors flame effects. A spell has some kind of weakness either something negates it, such as the touch of silver or it requires a spell component. Temper of the Mastodon obviously requires mastodon hair. Mastodon hair is rather rare. This is modeled mechanically.

To cast a spell both the player and the GM roll dice. The one who gets closest to the character’s Luck gets to decide the spell results. Since it could be anything, the GM has free reign should he win. If it is a tie, then both get to state results.

The use of spells is limited to those characters that acquire them, thus giving another dimension of protagonism.

STEP 7: SUMMING UP

To be brutally honest, I’m disappointed. This hardly feels like a heartbreaker at all. Perhaps it’s not the best concept in the world, but it could have been a nifty little heartbreaker, but it hardly seems that way at all anymore. But then, I am hardly the most prolific designer ever. This concept is hardly even a first draft. I didn’t even get to the combat system before I ran out of gas. To be frank, that’s probably just as well. The purpose was less to produce a real game but to show how difficult it is to design a heartbreaker, even for a mediocre designer, and how easy it is to stray into less cliched territory.

I hope you have found this informative, inspirational or, at least, entertaining.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Xena systemness...

Ben Lehman wrote: I do not know if it is possible to generate a heartbreaker without this scenario. I think that the time, gradual development, and isolation are important.

With an eye to a more in-depth reply to this topic, I've looked back over the RPGs that I wrote when I was in 6th-8th grade, some of which were in cooperation with my brother...

I'm really shocked at the contents, honestly. They are quite sophisticated.

I have an exhaustive list of notes below, but in general summary:

I had a lot of mechanical and setting ideas that were quite novel TO ME, but were not particularly novel in the context of general role-playing games. Things like unified resolution mechanics, lack of class-level advancement, sophisticated character creation options, etc.

I did not, by any means, escape all the cliches -- particularly, I expected no development on the social contract, I just ranted about "good and bad role-playing." This is not unreasonable, perhaps, because my own gaming group was not going to change.

This sample size of two leads me to believe that Heartbreakers should NOT be defined by the existence of cliches. They are essentially sophisticated RPGs developed by people in isolation, trying to piece together a more functional or more customized RPG experience from what they have had contact with.

Given this, they're defining feature is not that they contain cliches, but that they break free of them. Often, though, the authors don't really know how to break free of the cliches -- they're experimenting and sometimes get strange results. It is these strange results, I think, which are identifying to Heartbreakers.

As an example: Compulsive listing. For a game about life in Post WW3 China, I had extensive melee weapons listings, complete with pictures. For a game about fighting supernatural armies in alternate dimension, I had a list of over 100 psychic powers (and most characters weren't psychic.) Why did I do this?

I think that I was trying to give people flexibility to do interesting things with their characters, but hadn't yet developed the idea of single, flexible abilities (and wouldn't until I ran across Mage and Amber).

I also must retract my implication that Heartbreakers are developed through Actual Play. I played these games a sum total of twice. Mostly, we still just played D&D.

yrs--
--Ben

Now, the notes: Presently somewhat disjointed, but possibly interesting.

Games that I had had contact with:
A lot of: D&D basic, AD&D 2nd, Star Frontiers, TMNT, Tunnels and Trolls
A little: AD&D 1st, Heroes Unlimited, Marvel Superheroes, Generic Palladium Robots, Mercenaries Spies and Private Eyes
Read, but not played: RIFTs, Robotech, Boot Hill, Indiana Jones (of award fame), Twilight 2000
Heard of, but not read: Compleat Arduin, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0, Shadowrun

Most of these I had found in the used bookstore. Going to the RPG store was a once-in-a-year thing for me. I don't think I even bought anything then, just sort of soaked up the ambiance.

Things I noticed--
With no contact with BRP, and only minimal contact with MSH, I managed to produce a roll-under percentile system. Was it D&D thief skills? Was it Palladium (but it doesn't work anything like Palladium...) Or just that I thought it was a good idea?

Similarly, I had a SAN mechanic. Actually, I had a damn good SAN mechanic, for a numbers-heavy dysfunctionally written Sim game. Particularly, you lost MDC (Mental Damage Capacity -- thank you for the acronyms, Mr. Siembeda), for getting wounded in combat, and for killing people.

I had a great big fuck-off critical hit and fumble table. Where did this come from?

For a "Real World" game, there were no classes, races, or levels to speak of. For a more fantastical environment, I made HEAVY use of racial stereotypes (these are big, red-haired beserker guys, they're religion is all about that, they're art is all about that, that's all that they're about) but still no classes. Again, I can't figure out where I got this from...

I used a unified skill system -- you bought combat and non-combat skills in the same manner and resolved them in the same manner. You bought them from the same fixed point pools, as well. Skills cost varying and somewhat arbitrary amounts of points. The first "level" of any given skills was a HUGE boost, further levels only added small amounts. Resolution was "roll under skill+attribute on d100."

I had no alignment system for PCs -- although I did use it to describe NPC groups. I did feel a need to bash alignment systems, though.

Advancement was simply handled by giving the players more skill points. I have no idea how you were supposed to handle attribute advancement.

Although I was clearly more into random attribute generation, I gave the option to use pools of points.

I came up with a bitching cool attribute system with rankings in "physical" "mental" and "social," as well as "strength," "grace," and "fortitude." These combined to give the attributes used in play.

I had a very nice priorities system where you had a set number of points to distribute among character priorities (wealth, skill level, special powers, attributes, etc.) You still had to roll randomly within the categories, though. (So, for instance, prioritizing Wealth by putting 3 points into it gave you 4d6x10,000 dollars of savings...)

I was really into huge numbers of dice.

There were lots of in-jokes. I felt the need to talk about specific gamers in my groups a lot.

The godlike power of the GM is practically assumed.

I (or my brother, I think it was him) came up with a very nice scripted gun combat system (where you had to prioritize speed, accuracy, and number of shots) which had NOTHING to do with the rest of the game and made little sense in the context of the system, but it's there anyway.

I developed the idea of a skill tree (with more general skills cascading to more specific ones). Again, apparently all on my own. But I thought that a generally skilled person should only have a %50 chance to succeed. I think that this wasn't the "D&D wuss factor," though that was present in my games, as much as it was a misunderstanding of statistics.

I had HUGE lists of magical powers and monsters. Huge. You do not understand how huge. You CANNOT understand how huge. I put the monstrous manual to fucking shame. Much of these were made up and written about just because I saw some movie or other and thought that they were cool. Some, I have no idea where came from. Some of them I'm using for Demons the next time I run or play Sorcerer.

I wrote a game about supernatural creatures taking over the world, around the same time as Vampire was first written, but mine was lame... So sad...

I think you may be overanalyzing things a bit.

I think Fantasy (or whatever) Heartbreakers are basically 'X Done Right', where X is some game that is generally well liked and played, but is perceived to need some fixing.

So a Heartbreaker is going to have a setting probably fairly remeniscent of it's source material. It's going to have general systems and mechanics much like it's source material. But it's also going to have a lot of quirky tweaks and mods to things that the source material 'got wrong' or 'didn't handle well'.

I think it goes without saying that these alterations are going to probably be heavily simulationist and/or gamist. And they should (as you pointed out) have risen mostly in isolation with respect to Modern Gaming Systems.

I think there are many 'X done right' games on the market. Most aren't technically Heartbreakers, because the designers are in fact skilled enough to handle things. For example, BESM is basically a Heartbreaker of GURPS, which is in turn an Heartbreaker based on The Fantasy Trip and Champions.

Unknown Armies is a sort of Heartbreaker of Call of Cthulhu/RuneQuest/BRP and Everway, all rolled into one.

This useage of Heartbreaker is only suggestive, though -- these games don't break the heart because they do a good job of patching up the source material, they aren't ignorant of other game systems, they are truly innovative, and most importantly they don't slavishly imitate their source material.

IMHO, anyway.

Sorry, just have to clarify something.

I think Ron's suggestion that 'Everybody should write a heartbreaker at least once' has to do with figuring out what worked in the source game.

If you try and write a Traveller heartbreaker, for example, you are looking for what elements in Traveller excited you, and how they excited you, and you are trying to isolate them, but surround them with additional 'better' mechanics, details, and what have you.

The value in trying to do this is that distillation process. Traveller may not have modern mechanics, but it has something to it. Can we dissect things and work out what that is? And can we figure out how to make an original system (ie, a NON-Heartbreaker) that incorporates that? If the mechanics are so bad, well, then whatever Traveller has it must have DESPITE it's mechanics. So don't be too inovative with the mechanics, but dig into emulating the rest, to see where in the rest the good bits are.

I think this is connected to 80s gaming in a fundamental way.

When I describe gaming to non-gamers, I always have to point out that AD&D1e actually had two completely independent set of rules. They had the rules as printed and it had the rules as played. I think this was extremely common in the 80s gaming culture. The 'as played' rules were more or less handled through oral tradition, or were written down as house rules. Oral tradition was a lot more common in my experience.

Nobody I know (well, okay, one guy in Nevada (Hi, Tony!)) used the Weapon vs. Armor modifiers in AD&D, even though you were supposed to. Nobody I played with really bothered much with spell components, either. My experience here may be a little different than most -- I started gaming in Minnesota, then moved to Nevada in Jr. High, then moved to -- gak -- Idaho in High School, then did college in Oregon & California. This oral indoctrination was common everywhere I gamed.

We had more fun not using all the rules than we did when we slavishly followed them. So, obviously, our rules were BETTER. So, we should write them up and, well, make lots of money/share them with everyone!
I think this energy and naive cluelessness marks most Heartbreakers.

Okay, so my clarification is longer than my original post. :/ Ah, well.

Thank you Anya for that insight. I really like your take. Now here's mine, which will undoubtedly get me labeled a heretic.

1) The Heartbreaker term is insulting and laden with connotation that this is inherently bad to do exactly what you mentioned

2) The notion that to not try and find a balance between G/N/S (which I find debated far too much for no real useful purpose) limits focus of the game to what I like to refer to as a "one night stand" game. This is paramount to guaranteeing that you will never be a threat to the larger games out there, thus creating the self-fulfilling prophecy of indie-RPGs remaining a tiny little niche that will never make its owner any real money. While I know that RPGs are not a huge moneymaking endeavor to begin with (just like Comics is rapidly becoming), ignoring the idea of broadening the scope of a game to include all the various gamer types out there is just plain silly. It's elitist and smacks of art snobbery. The same thing happens among "music lovers" as well. If someone does something that is percieved as popular, they are "selling out" or some other silly label. Considering that most bands are crap to begin with, but they all want that brass ring, to make disparaging remarks about somoeone's work that is commercially successful is arrogant and screams "I'm jealous of them". Lots of punk bands claim that Rush has no soul and is too technical, for instance, when in reality they are merely jealous because they do not have the same level of musical expertise that Neal Peart, Alex Lifeson, and Geddy Lee possess.

3) Instead of focusing on GNS, why not take a different approach, like the one presented regarding MMORPGs which actually entails ANY game. What I'm referring to is the notion that there are 4 types of players. I'm writing this from memory, so forgive if I get something a little off. The first is the Achiever who is only interested in attaining levels and reaching that next plateau. The 2nd is the Social gamer, who's all into the RP and establishing the story. The 3rd is the Explorer; the guy who delves deep into the rules and how things work (Mike Holmes seems this type). The 4th is the Grief player, he's the one that delights in ruining others fun. This is the guy that is only into combat or beating the other players. No game can truly be successful unless you have ways for ALL 4 to have fun. The Socializer needs the Grief player around in order to have something to complain about. The Achiever and the Explorer can usually keep this one in line if need be, as they know the system and or have gained the power to beat the Griefer and so on. This paradigm applies in Quake, Everquest, hell, even in Bridge. This mix of players is in every group and no group is like minded completely. The GM needs to balance these 4 out and so does the Game Designer if he wants to have his game be more than a curiosity. The reason that games like Traveller and DnD have stood the test of time is not their marketing muscle, it is the inherent understanding that broadening the base is necessary to do that. Games that focus too tightly, lose their appeal much faster. For once you've been there done that, it's time to move on.

My notion of a real Heartbreaker of a game (fantasy or otherwise) is one that is trying so hard to not be "like the other guys" that it ends up alienating an aspect of those it wishes to connect with, read Gamers. Gamers are a funny people with as widely varied tastes as any who crave entertainment. Look to the dreaded enemy of the tabletop RPG, the Video Game, to see what I'm talking about. In my 8 years in the video and computer game industry the games that sell consistently well and are the biggest hits are the ones that take the greatest care to appeal to a wider audience than just the niche that they are filling. There you will find nothing but this forums description of a Heartbreaker, yet a game like HALO sells a zillion copies, even though technically, it's nothing more than a prettier version of Doom. What sets HALO apart from the rest is that they not only gave a compelling game experience, but they also did so with presentation values far beyond the norm.

My biggest complaint with indie rpgs, even the big boys, is that the presentation given is pure, unadulterated ASS. How many times have we all complained that the art of this or that game looked awful? More than any of us could count I'd imagine, even the newer players. Just like in the video game world, it has to not just be FUN, it also has to LOOK PRETTY. We live in a time when pretty sells more than fun does; it's that simple. But what will sustain a players interest is if the PRETTY is ALSO fun. We as designers have a duty to make sure that we are providing the FUN side of the game, but we as creators have the duty to our customers to also provide an attractive product. Part of this is to stand out from the crowd, but also to just provide the customer service end of the business of selling a product. I've worked in games, but also worked in a LOT of customer service jobs, something more artists should do (and I consider writers and designers to be artists after a fashion). The minute you decide to present your work to the public, you have a duty to them, as your customer (even if you are GIVING it away IMO), to provide them with something not just comelling to read, but also to look at.

Case in point, TROS has a great read (from what I've read so far), but it also comes in an attractive package. On the other hand, even though I know that Sorcerer is supposed to be a great game, I have a hard time getting past that cover that Ron presents on the webpage (sorry, Ron it looks low budget). This is not to say that I won't check out his work, but it certainly doesn't make me WANT to buy the book, let alone read it. The same can be said of Two-Fisted Tales, the preview of which I downloaded off RPGNow. Looks like a really fun game (and I'm a sucker for Pulp, even since Justice Inc), but the layout of their PDF is horrible. There's no artistry given to the presentation of the freebie, which unintentionally leads my mind to think what about the rest of the game is lacking? This perception is easy to get past, but you have to get past it, which shouldn't be the case. It's too easy to make something look attractive with a little effort and a half decent eye.

Now, admittedly, I have an eye for graphic design (albeit one that is still learning all the time, as I'm self taught), but at the same time, I also know when to go looking for someone better than me (hence I'm paying for art for my game, Realms of Wonder). But just because art can be expensive, there are alternatives. Clinton Nixon's article on the subject http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/14/ touches on ways to get art cheap and I say while those are good things, make damn sure you have a standard you keep to. Accepting free art that is crap will do more harm than spending a few bucks here and there on some good art. I'm sure many are familiar with Elfwood http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/ and that is an AMAZING resource for finding unpublished artists (and many who are) who might be willing to work with you for a reasonable price. I found 2 amazing artists there and they are modestly priced, so they are getting a lot of work.

I think that the true Heartbreaker is made by someone who doesn't have enough pride in their work to make it read AND look the very best they can.

That's my 2 cents...flame me if you like, but I've said what I feel needs to be said here on this subject. I think too much energy is spent on discouraging people by labelling their work a Heartbreaker simply because it's got its roots in another game or doesn't break all the molds. It's sometimes the blending and spinning of ideas, introducing something new into something old that makes a game seem fresh and interesting. There is not one mechanic, idea, or concept that is not derived from somewhere else. You have all been influenced by that which you grew up with, so with that said, ALL modern games are heartbreakers, according to the vibe I get here. Get over it and move on to making cool games. Stop debating theory and perhaps look at why a particular game is successful. D20 didn't reinvigorate the RPG scene on marketting alone! There is obviously something there that is attracting new players to the scene, as most of the older gamers seems to shun newer DnD...hell there are gamers who refuse to play form of DnD other than ADnD 1e!! I chalk those up to the same mentality of people in Brooklyn angry at the Dodgers for leaving!

Just to clarify, I do feel this forum has some use and is certainly interesting to read at times, but I feel it bogs itself down in needless debate over things that don't matter nearly as much as people seem to make them.

I also respect everyone's work as I know FULL WELL, how hard it is to make anything people are going to play.

I also singled out Mike in the above gamer type example for illustration purposes only, as he's the only one on this forum that I could sort of read. Sean Fannon (a partner of mine in Action Studios and a goof friend) is certainly more the Social Gamer. I tend to fall into this real as well, and there are certainly cases when a gamer falls into more than one type of course.

AnyaTheBlue wrote: I think you may be overanalyzing things a bit.

I think Fantasy (or whatever) Heartbreakers are basically 'X Done Right', where X is some game that is generally well liked and played, but is perceived to need some fixing.

Hardpoint wrote: Thank you Anya for that insight. I really like your take. Now here's mine, which will undoubtedly get me labeled a heretic.

Hardpoint wrote:
1) The Heartbreaker term is insulting and laden with connotation that this is inherently bad to do exactly what you mentioned

2) The notion that to not try and find a balance between G/N/S (which I find debated far too much for no real useful purpose) limits focus of the game to what I like to refer to as a "one night stand" game. This is paramount to guaranteeing that you will never be a threat to the larger games out there, thus creating the self-fulfilling prophecy of indie-RPGs remaining a tiny little niche that will never make its owner any real money.

3) Instead of focusing on GNS, why not take a different approach, like the one presented regarding MMORPGs which actually entails ANY game. What I'm referring to is the notion that there are 4 types of players.
*long description of four player types snipped*
This paradigm applies in Quake, Everquest, hell, even in Bridge.

This mix of players is in every group and no group is like minded completely. The GM needs to balance these 4 out and so does the Game Designer if he wants to have his game be more than a curiosity. The reason that games like Traveller and DnD have stood the test of time is not their marketing muscle, it is the inherent understanding that broadening the base is necessary to do that. Games that focus too tightly, lose their appeal much faster. For once you've been there done that, it's time to move on.

My notion of a real Heartbreaker of a game (fantasy or otherwise) is one that is trying so hard to not be "like the other guys" that it ends up alienating an aspect of those it wishes to connect with, read Gamers. Gamers are a funny people with as widely varied tastes as any who crave entertainment.

Look to the dreaded enemy of the tabletop RPG, the Video Game, to see what I'm talking about. In my 8 years in the video and computer game industry the games that sell consistently well and are the biggest hits are the ones that take the greatest care to appeal to a wider audience than just the niche that they are filling. There you will find nothing but this forums description of a Heartbreaker, yet a game like HALO sells a zillion copies, even though technically, it's nothing more than a prettier version of Doom. What sets HALO apart from the rest is that they not only gave a compelling game experience, but they also did so with presentation values far beyond the norm.

My biggest complaint with indie rpgs, even the big boys, is that the presentation given is pure, unadulterated ASS. How many times have we all complained that the art of this or that game looked awful? More than any of us could count I'd imagine, even the newer players. Just like in the video game world, it has to not just be FUN, it also has to LOOK PRETTY. We live in a time when pretty sells more than fun does; it's that simple. But what will sustain a players interest is if the PRETTY is ALSO fun. We as designers have a duty to make sure that we are providing the FUN side of the game, but we as creators have the duty to our customers to also provide an attractive product. Part of this is to stand out from the crowd, but also to just provide the customer service end of the business of selling a product. I've worked in games, but also worked in a LOT of customer service jobs, something more artists should do (and I consider writers and designers to be artists after a fashion). The minute you decide to present your work to the public, you have a duty to them, as your customer (even if you are GIVING it away IMO), to provide them with something not just comelling to read, but also to look at.

Case in point, TROS has a great read (from what I've read so far), but it also comes in an attractive package. On the other hand, even though I know that Sorcerer is supposed to be a great game, I have a hard time getting past that cover that Ron presents on the webpage (sorry, Ron it looks low budget). This is not to say that I won't check out his work, but it certainly doesn't make me WANT to buy the book, let alone read it. The same can be said of Two-Fisted Tales, the preview of which I downloaded off RPGNow. Looks like a really fun game (and I'm a sucker for Pulp, even since Justice Inc), but the layout of their PDF is horrible. There's no artistry given to the presentation of the freebie, which unintentionally leads my mind to think what about the rest of the game is lacking? This perception is easy to get past, but you have to get past it, which shouldn't be the case. It's too easy to make something look attractive with a little effort and a half decent eye.

I think too much energy is spent on discouraging people by labelling their work a Heartbreaker simply because it's got its roots in another game or doesn't break all the molds. It's sometimes the blending and spinning of ideas, introducing something new into something old that makes a game seem fresh and interesting. There is not one mechanic, idea, or concept that is not derived from somewhere else. You have all been influenced by that which you grew up with, so with that said, ALL modern games are heartbreakers, according to the vibe I get here. Get over it and move on to making cool games. Stop debating theory and perhaps look at why a particular game is successful.

Hi, Marcus

I hear what you're saying. I don't agree with most of it, but I hear you. Ben covered most of the bases. I'll cover a couple others.

I disagree on most every point you had made about D&D3e. I had thought their initial success was mostly due to marketing, hype over the game finally being "fixed," a low low $20 price and so on which had entice many, many old hand roleplayers who had long sworn off D&D to take a look. I know this because I was one such roleplayer.It's now several years later and I have since sworn it off again. I actually did right after I bought the Player's Handbook but I still bought the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual anyway. Proof positive that gamer, or just me, are stupid when it comes to buying stuff. Reminds me of a line by Evan Dorking "Jeez the Steel action figures sucked ass. I only bought one of each." I further disagree with looking at D&D as one of the big boys. That is, I disagree with the concept of the RPG big boys, games so successful they will never be triumphed over. I point to the Mainstream: a revision which echoes most of my thoughts on the subject. They are big fish in a small pond.

However, this is getting way off-topic.

Back to fantasy heartbreakers. After some more thought, I am starting to wonder if a fantasy heartbreaker is divorcable from D&D Fantasy. (also here) I'm starting to think it isn't. I may turn out to be wrong. There had been talk of Storyteller Heartbreakers. I had put forth the idea of generic/universal heartbreakers which I now realize that I was mostly talking about fantasy heartbreakers with the words "Usable with any setting/genre/play style/etc." Whatever indicates it's a generic/universal system, such as my old GM's homebrewed game. There was even a thread about designing heartbreakers before by some twink. (Oh wait. That's me.) TBH I am not entirely convinced that there are other kinds of heartbreakers other than fantasy heartbreakers. It certainly seems to be the most pervasive form. Fantasy games come out all the time, and had been since D&D first hit and many still equate roleplaying with D&D fantasy.

Come to think of it, I find it difficult to divorce fantasy heartbreakers from most of the traits mentioned in the articles, such as touting "innovations" such as not having classes which had been in RPGs since the 70's. It's because of things such as this that they break the heart. Someone less naive about RPGs would have a classless system, but would not waste time shouting about it. A heartbreaker does.

I suppose this means that it does take a certain amount of isolation to make a heartbreaker. Funny how John Kim said this back in Januaray.

Hardpoint wrote: Thank you Anya for that insight. I really like your take. Now here's mine, which will undoubtedly get me labeled a heretic.

1) The Heartbreaker term is insulting and laden with connotation that this is inherently bad to do exactly what you mentioned

Hardpoint wrote:
3) Instead of focusing on GNS, why not take a different approach, like the one presented regarding MMORPGs which actually entails ANY game. What I'm referring to is the notion that there are 4 types of players.

Hardpoint wrote:
My biggest complaint with indie rpgs, even the big boys, is that the presentation given is pure, unadulterated ASS.

Hello,

This thread badly needs focus.

1. Jack, thanks for trying to keep it on track.

2. Mark and Marcus, please take all discussion of (a) whether the term "Heartbreaker" means something, and if so what; (b) presentation and physical design of games; and (c) any point or utility to GNS-theorizing to other threads in the appropriate forums.

Thanks,
Ron

BL> I think that you're overestimating the amount of design that goes into a heartbreaker, and underestimating the amount of time

I should probably have called what I was talking about something other than 'Heartbreaker'.

I think there is a continuum of games that are inspired/descended from other games. The connection can be obvious (Palladium FRP and D&D) or it can be more subtle (Unknown Armies and Everway, IMHO, or OtE and MEGS). It can be because of mechanics (Star Wars d6 and Ghostbusters), or setting (Earthdawn and Glorantha).

Obviously, many/most/all of the games I'm mentioning there are not what Ron would qualify as a Heartbreaker in the sense of his essay. I'm not sure I'm being kinder to Heartbreakers than anybody else, I'm just pointing out what I see as their primary utility to the designer who wishes to learn more about the craft of designing. Just because your game is a sort of improvement/iteration of another doesn't consign it to Heartbreaker-dom. Likewise, a game can be more or less heartbreaking. Maybe only parts of the setting are heartbreaking. Maybe only bits of the mechanics. Not all heartbreakers are equally heartbreaking, IMHO.

I definitely think you can have non-Fantasy heartbreakers. Any beloved game that you attempt to improve can result in them.

I'll use a recent example. I'm not trying to offend anybody, this is simply a game I feel is a heartbreaker solely on the basis of it's construction. I haven't tried playing it yet, and I haven't looked at the mechanics carefully, so I could be full of it.

The game in question is "Promised Sands". While overtly a sort of Arabian Nights fantasy game, if you scratch the veneer of the setting it shows us that it's actually a post-apocalypse SF game. There are guns. There are computers and other whozits in underwater safeholds where pre-catastrophe 'pure strain humans' continue to live. Magic abilities seem to be in fact psychic powers, possibly brought on through the use of alien artifacts of some sort (there is talk in the book of one species having a larger pituitary gland than standard humans, and them having a higher incidence of 'Ido and Qai' abilities). The species of the world seem to be primarily 'fantasy tropes' (ie, elves, dwarves, etc.), but turn out to be, largely, mutant varieties of humans or other animals.

For me, the game seems to be a Gamma World/Morrow Project Heartbreaker. Or possibly a Skyrealms of Jorune heartbreaker, although in those particular cases the post-apocalyptic angle is more clearly present, whereas in Promised Sands it's fairly obviously the case, but the designers seem to want you to ignore that and focus on the faux-arabian nights sort of veneer, so the nature of the catastrophe is never really explicitely explained. I expect it'll be revealed in the metaplot that seems to be suggested by the flavor text.

If pressed, I'd guess that the world of T'nah is in fact supposed to be a post-apocalypse Montana (with Zhamin being Bozeman, approximately).

Anyway, my point isn't to rag on Promised Sands. It's a published game out there in the world, which is far more than I've ever accomplished. But reading through it certainly broke my heart, and not because it was trying to be 'A better D&D than D&D'.

Marcus, I respect your right to have your own opinion, but I think you are too emotionally tied to your own labor of love to see clearly what is being said. You have so much invested in what you've created that you're seeing criticism as attacks, and suggestions as flames.

You have created a game you enjoy...fantastic. And I don't mean that snidely, I mean fantastic. If you and your friends are having a good time and your game accomplishes what you want it to do, than 100% great.

But when you start talking about "art-snobbery" and designing games that "appeal to everyone"...you're talking about things with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.

"Fantasy Heartbreaker" uses the word "Heatbreaker" for a reason. The only insult in that term is what you put there yourself. Its not called "Fantasy piece of crap"...its called "Fantasy Heartbreaker". Meaning, its a heartbreaker. Why? Because there's so much more it could have been. Because there are nuggets of really awesome stuff in there. And because unfortuneately, that awesome stuff is contained within a wrapper of preconceptions and assumptions about what games are supposed to be like, that will prevent them from ever being anything more than someones homebrew.

You want to know how I can say that with confidence? Because I have a shelf stuffed full of games whose designer was every bit as passionate about their creation as you are about yours. They just knew that their game did X, Y and Z better than "any other game" (where "any other game usually meant D&D, and or WOD) and that would make a difference.

I can pretty much guarentee that those games have more copies sitting in boxes in their basement than they ever sold. Why? Because, ultimately the game didn't offer enough that gamers couldn't already get from games they already have...be it D&D or their own home brew. A cool concept for how to do magic and a new name for elves isn't going to get anyones attention.

If all you want is to make a fun home brew for yourself...more power to you. That's grass roots gaming at its best and has been a core of the hobby since the first odd shaped die hit the table. But if your're actually designing a game to be published...well...then you've entered different territory alltogether. You and your friends having fun around a table is no longer a sufficient yardstick as to its broader appeal.

I was excited for a moment by your game description...especially the part about the Wielders. That idea might have been something worth me hecking out. But that's not the direction you're going. You'd rather do a game where players can play anything or do anything and have any sort of adventure and you have a kick ass magic system...

Well sorry. But I have a dozen kick ass magic systems sitting on my hard drive right now. I can do my own home brew magic rules for a generic fantasy setting. Me and every third gamer out there's been doing that since we were twelve.

If that was all it took to be a successful RPG, the games on my shelf would be hit sellers not obscure titles available only on ebay or dusty discount bins.

And as for game designers here not knowing what the market really wants...well. When you have some of the top most widely recognized and widely respected game designers in the industry making stopping by the Forge booth a top priority of their GenCon agenda...then you can at least be sure that something we're doing here is piqueing some interest.

No we don't have all the answers. But we do ask the tough questions...and that makes all the difference.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

This thread badly needs focus.

1. Jack, thanks for trying to keep it on track.

2. Mark and Marcus, please take all discussion of (a) whether the term "Heartbreaker" means something, and if so what; (b) presentation and physical design of games; and (c) any point or utility to GNS-theorizing to other threads in the appropriate forums.

Thanks,
Ron

I was originally going to answer Ben with a lengthy post, but I erased it. Why? Well, because I had a slight epiphany which I thought I might share with you, that IS on topic.

Perhaps how to make a Fantasy Heartbreaker is to make a product that lacks a unique self image. Those games that start with the concept, "Xgame done right" simply lack a proper identity and this is why they break the heart. They never find their own voice, even if they make all kinds of interesting new "technology" bits.

As Anya points out, PFRP is something of a DnD Heartbreaker (and still the best of the Palladium products IMO), but it at least found itself an identity through the marketing muscle and sweat of Kevin and his wife. This then lead to the TMNT and Robotech licencses, and eventually to Rifts. PFRP is not so much a Heartbreaker as it is a stepping stone to other games which are not Heartbreakers (well...for some anyway).

So to avoid a Heartbreaker label, a game needs to find its own "voice", which is the same thing I was trying to say in regards to looking at how video games are done. The heartbreaker concept is all over the game industry (regardless of what Ben thinks, video games and RPGs have a LOT in common...especially since a great many video game makers were and/or still are RPGers too) They do the same thing as the next game, 99% of the time, but what makes them stand out is their vision and voice. Prime example is the PC games Sin and Half-Life. Sin is forgotten, while Half-Life is considered a classic. They both came out the same month, and even looked somewhat similar visually. The difference is that while Sin's vision was hackneyed and flat, Half-Life was vibrant and new. Sin set out to make a FPS, Half-Life set out to make a unique experience. That's what I'm talking about with the video game model, how a game can be totally using the same stuff other games did, but stand out because it has a VOICE that is clearly heard. The game that ends up a Heartbreaker is one that's voice cannot.

Hardpoint wrote:
Perhaps how to make a Fantasy Heartbreaker is to make a product that lacks a unique self image. Those games that start with the concept, "Xgame done right" simply lack a proper identity and this is why they break the heart. They never find their own voice, even if they make all kinds of interesting new "technology" bits.

Ron Edwards wrote: This thread badly needs focus.
2. Mark and Marcus, please take all discussion of (a) whether the term "Heartbreaker" means something, and if so what; (b) presentation and physical design of games; and (c) any point or utility to GNS-theorizing to other threads in the appropriate forums.

Reading the writeup on Undiscovered on cyberdungeon.com shows me that this is indeed what I was talking about. Yes, it is a Heartbreaker from the description in this forum, but that is not meaning that it is a bad game, just a poorly marketed one. I wish them nothing but tons of good luck, as they've done the gutsy thing, which is printing a book.

Anyone actually gotten to read this "heartbreaker"?

Hardpoint wrote: Reading the writeup on Undiscovered on cyberdungeon.com shows me that this is indeed what I was talking about. Yes, it is a Heartbreaker from the description in this forum, but that is not meaning that it is a bad game, just a poorly marketed one. I wish them nothing but tons of good luck, as they've done the gutsy thing, which is printing a book.
Anyone actually gotten to read this "heartbreaker"?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

Ben Lehman wrote: I do not know if it is possible to generate a heartbreaker without this scenario. I think that the time, gradual development, and isolation are important.

I will agree with the isolation.

Regarding Undiscovered...

I'd like it to succeed, even though I know it can't.

Jeffrey Miller wrote: While anecdotally I'd have to agree, I'm not sure its a requirement. What is the motivation for the fantasy heartbreaker (or heartbreakers of any stripe, really?) I can easily envision a case where a person has been fully exposed to a variety of theories and systems, but is trying to capture a style of play peculiar to their experience, and don't quite have the understanding to see that as a social event rather than a mechanical or setting-based event.

madelf wrote: Regarding Undiscovered...

I'd like it to succeed, even though I know it can't.

On what basis do you say it can't?

It's out there.
It seems to be selling.
They're still going ahead with supplemental material.

It may not become the game of the decade, but are you sure it's a complete failure?

It may not become the game of the decade, but are you sure it's a complete failure?

I'm really confused as to what this thread is supposed to be about.

Jack, you keep bringing up Heartbreakers repeatedly in several threads, but I've yet to see anything added to what was in the original articles. In fact all these threads on the topic only seem to confound what seemed to me to be a simple principle. The thing that really gets me is that the article is called "Fantasy Heartbreakers" and just now you figure out that it's all about fantasy games. Just like the articles state. Huh.

Marcus in one stab at it has it down cold. FH are games based off D&D that don't have their own "voice" as he puts it (and it's ironic that he rails against it, because as we've discovered my guess that his game was a FH was based on the fact that I was trying to assess it from what was, essentially an advertisement; apparently his game does have it's own voice). Oh, they have things to say, but they're doing it in ways that are not intrinsic to their own visions. It's really a very simple application of System Does Matter.

Marcus, what the theory here boils down to is that there are ways to make a better system. That's not really controversial. GNS is only one sub-theory that addresses only a part of that (and one which we debate the importance of regularly). Nobody is saying that it's some end-all way to design games from top to bottom. It's just one potential part of achieving that voice. So, all the Fantasy Heartbreakers article is saying is that there are some games out there that don't acheive what they could because they only are aware of a narrow means to achieve their goals.

Interestingly, I sorta support one of Anya's ideas in a way. I was one of the first people to propose that one ought to, as a form of something like an apprenticeship, make a Fantasy Heartbreaker. Sort of a rite of passage. I did this myself, certainly, and maybe I just want people to share in having suffered through doing it. It's actually not neccessary, however. Especially because most of us have done it already. Heck, if you've heavily modified your D&D game, this was your apprenticeship to being a designer, right there. If you can skip the pain of putting out a game that doesn't project it's real image, avoid it.

We all know we can do better than just decoration of existing models. To an extent, we all are just copying D&D, I guess - after all, these are all RPGs. The question, however, is to what extent the changes we make represent substantively good design, themselves. Not in terms of "not being like D&D", but in terms of the design being what it needs to be. Having that "Voice" which Marcus mentions.

Mike

Hmm. Do you think its going to make its capital investment back? I know nothing about it, just asking

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Since the publication of the two Fantasy Heartbreaker essays, there has been some on-again, off-again discussion about fantasy heartbreakers. A good deal of the discussion has been about what is a fantasy heartbreaker. What are its attributes?

contracycle wrote: Additionally, I wanted to say we should not get carried away with the Heartbreaker label, having identified it. Some derivative games may not be Heartbreakers because they do have a voice (a description I like a lot, btw), and some, like FATAL, are just fucked up. But I think this has already been said and I agree with Jacks last post in all particulars.