Request Editors and authors wanted for game design

[Eske]

A quick update: I have begun work on a quick-start version of Modus. It involves going back to very old files and copy/pasting the relevant bits and updating them. I guess I am about 50% done. There will be an example of how it works, so people can can criticise it

 

[Eske]

Well, I subscribe to the Fail Faster model - make it, test it, iterate on it. It's why I run so many games and try to get so much feedback. Since I write fiction as well as games, I regard them very differently; I like strong mechanical elements in RPGs to differentiate them from standard fiction. You can use the mechanics to help support plot and character, and to reinforce tone or play-patterns. If, for example, you make combat very deadly and very quick, it becomes a kind of negative space - it's high-stakes and exciting when it happens, doesn't slow the game down, and makes it feel gritty or realistic, but it also changes the emphasis to non-combat since players will actively avoid combat in case it kills them.
Likewise, having specific mechanics for something genre-appropriate can help make that feel significant and try to emulate the qualitative experience from other media, such as a hacking mechanic for a cyberpunk setting.


I'm mainly awful to collaborate with because of my time usage and methods. I like to start from the very bottom and make sure both the setting and system will be internally consistent and symbiotic. If one collaborator gives me a bunch of ideas, I'll normally knock everything down and restart from scratch with the new information. I don't collaborate so much as consolidate what everyone else is doing in a way that feels right, hand it over to the group, and then sleep on it for a week.


Here's a link to most of the Crucible content currently available - teaser content, really, since it's undergoing revisions. Journeyman is a little side project with a lot of filler mechanics, but I need to test it to start paring it back.

So what systems do you run? I'd love to hear which systems you think are good at what they do, and which are your favorites...


Are you also a player, or solely a GM?

 

[Eske]

Grey: I took some time and read your Crucible game. I take it you won't mind a little feedback either?


Disclaimer: you're a good writer and a serious designer with a sense for sturdy rules. The following is not meant to offend, but to convey what I was thinking when I read your book. Seriously, I want you to be objective about this, which is hard when you have slaved on a game for a long time. But please try. Otherwise I will regret having posted this.


First off, your game is old-school! The system reminds me of all the classic fantasy systems: Runequest, Chaosium Fantasy, GURPS, even a little Rolemaster...There are also some small bits that resemble stuff from newer fantasy games like the Game of Thrones game.


Now this isn't negative as such; fantasy is by far the most popular genre in the RPG world. I am sick of it, however. My gripes are a matter of taste, so take them with a grain of salt.


In my opinion, the rules are overly complicated. Now there's nothing wrong with complicated rules if they make the game more entertaining. But there is nothing in the rules that add anything to the game but a sense of "realism" and simulation. And the fact that the math itself can be fun to noodle with.


This is probably my biggest gripe; I really hate GURPS and related "realistic" simulation games. That's a personal preference, but my criticism centers on the fact that roleplaying is a game, games are supposed to be fun, not emulate life just for the sake of it.


Again, it's the same problem that 95% of all the 80s fantasy roleplaying games had. That's why I call your game old-school.


But seriously now...I have a hard time finding anything in your game that hasn't been done to death. You could easily have picked up any old-school fantasy ruleset and applied your setting instead of making a mix and match of all the classic fantasy games I've mentioned.


I totally understand the wish of creating your own system. I get it. I have the same need. But I make sure that my systems do something unique; otherwise, what's the point?


Finally, the setting...it is clear that you have aspirations to become a writer. The setting is rich and detailed. It would make for a good fantasy novel if you added a story. But as a game setting? There is way too much superfluous material. A good setting delivers on the points where the players are likely to have most fun, then cuts the rest.


So my advice to you is to slim down your setting, streamline your rules and finally, give the game something that makes it stand apart from Runequest and games like it.


This is meant as constructive criticism; I hope you see that. Don't take offense, because that was not my intended purpose. Most of what I have complained about is related to fantasy in general and old-school rules.


Take it in with a smile; it's just my opinion, nothing more.

 

[Grey]

So what systems do you run? I'd love to hear which systems you think are good at what they do, and which are your favorites...
Are you also a player, or solely a GM?

I do play a little, but I mainly GM.


I love L5R, nWoD (practically all of it) FATE, and AW. I'm also fond of 2nd ed Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Earthdawn has caught my interest, lately, too, and I really want to try out the Malifaux roleplaying game. I think D&D 4th was beautifully designed and does its job very well, but I'd actually never run it and probably not play it.


I have an affection for oWoD, but think the 20th anniversary line does it a little better than the classic format. I'd never compare the new and old WoD because they're very different animals, but I think nWoD fulfills its mission statement better (Blood and Smoke even more so).

Grey: I took some time and read your Crucible game. I take it you won't mind a little feedback either?
Disclaimer: you're a good writer and a serious designer with a sense for sturdy rules. The following is not meant to offend, but to convey what I was thinking when I read your book. Seriously, I want you to be objective about this, which is hard when you have slaved on a game for a long time. But please try. Otherwise I will regret having posted this.


First off, your game is old-school! The system reminds me of all the classic fantasy systems: Runequest, Chaosium Fantasy, GURPS, even a little Rolemaster...There are also some small bits that resemble stuff from newer fantasy games like the Game of Thrones game.


Now this isn't negative as such; fantasy is by far the most popular genre in the RPG world. I am sick of it, however. My gripes are a matter of taste, so take them with a grain of salt.


In my opinion, the rules are overly complicated. Now there's nothing wrong with complicated rules if they make the game more entertaining. But there is nothing in the rules that add anything to the game but a sense of "realism" and simulation. And the fact that the math itself can be fun to noodle with.


This is probably my biggest gripe; I really hate GURPS and related "realistic" simulation games. That's a personal preference, but my criticism centers on the fact that roleplaying is a game, games are supposed to be fun, not emulate life just for the sake of it.


Again, it's the same problem that 95% of all the 80s fantasy roleplaying games had. That's why I call your game old-school.


But seriously now...I have a hard time finding anything in your game that hasn't been done to death. You could easily have picked up any old-school fantasy ruleset and applied your setting instead of making a mix and match of all the classic fantasy games I've mentioned.


I totally understand the wish of creating your own system. I get it. I have the same need. But I make sure that my systems do something unique; otherwise, what's the point?


Finally, the setting...it is clear that you have aspirations to become a writer. The setting is rich and detailed. It would make for a good fantasy novel if you added a story. But as a game setting? There is way too much superfluous material. A good setting delivers on the points where the players are likely to have most fun, then cuts the rest.


So my advice to you is to slim down your setting, streamline your rules and finally, give the game something that makes it stand apart from Runequest and games like it.


This is meant as constructive criticism; I hope you see that. Don't take offense, because that was not my intended purpose. Most of what I have complained about is related to fantasy in general and old-school rules.


Take it in with a smile; it's just my opinion, nothing more.

I will never be offended by honest and useful criticism, and I thank you for it.


Funnily enough, players have always asked for more setting, so I keep building.


I honestly don't see the comparison to the other games, but I'll agree it's old school. I don't think it's accurate to say the system enforces unnecessary realism - the setting and system were written to work together, and I feel the complexity reflects that. In particular, I know of only one other game that does anything like the combat engine, and while the magic system isn't totally unique I think it serves my purposes very well. Ultimately, I designed the system specifically because I didn't know other systems that would serve the setting. Could you give me some examples of ways it resembles other games? Especially Rolemaster because I hate Rolemaster.


Fully grok your being sick of fantasy - I'm getting a bit tired of it, too. Crucible isn't meant to be static medieval fantasy - the Dark Age is my jumping off point. Also, most players and GMs I know treat most existing fantasy games as a joke (D&D's punchline is how silly your build gets or how you can exploit the rules for something hilarious), and while games should be fun they can also be emotionally engaging. I guess I just like to run darker games.


But your criticism has been noted and I will ruminate on it further.

 

[Eske]

thanks Grey for your insightful response. I always appreciate people who can take criticism without being offended.


So my criticism is largely based on my own preferences for games and the philosophy behind them, so it is far from objective. But let me see if I can expand on it.


I am pleased that you agree that your game is old-school; nothing wrong with that. About the similar games; yep, Rolemaster is a horrible game. I think there were some tables that sparked that idea in my head, but it was a far fetched comparison.


A major factor that gave me flashbacks to the 80s were the lack of a style guide. I know it's early development, but even so, a style guide makes a huge difference. A good style guide will give advice on how to make better paragraphs, structures, which I think your book could benefit from.


Keep your paragraphs as short as possible - even down to one sentence, if it's long enough - and never over 5 lines. Go for the middle ground. Avoid huge blocks of texts. Your readers will thank you


When I use the word "realism", the quotes are there for a reason; games can't (and shouldn't) be realistic. A classic example is the Fatigue concept (both in your game and many others, most prominently GURPS). How is it any fun keeping score of how much your PC can carry, do, run, fight, etc?


In GURPS, the rule is there for absolutely no reason but to make sure that PCs get tired like we all do in real life. What a drag that is! Of course, your game isn't fully developed, so you might have a good reason for having it.


About the setting: There's nothing wrong with it, and if your players want more, then perhaps you should consider breaking it up into separate books. The setting would benefit from it, because you'd have to structure your fictional world into smaller bits and think about which ones are most likely to facilitate great roleplaying.


If your final draft uses that much space on setting - like half the book, before you get to the rules - that's a problem.


However, there is another solution, one that you hinted at yourself. Incorporate your rules in the setting description. Have boxes with stats for the characters, organisations and stuff. It would mean a revamp of the structure, but I think the book will be much better.


I like the fact that your rules can be repurposed to other settings. To keep things clean, you might even want to consider making a rules-only book, perhaps a quick-start rules book. No reason not to have separate PDFs with the setting, one with quickstart rules and one big PDF with both.


I hope you find some of that useful; if I wasn't clear on something, let me know.

 

[Eske]

I do play a little, but I mainly GM.
I love L5R, nWoD (practically all of it) FATE, and AW. I'm also fond of 2nd ed Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Earthdawn has caught my interest, lately, too, and I really want to try out the Malifaux roleplaying game. I think D&D 4th was beautifully designed and does its job very well, but I'd actually never run it and probably not play it.


I have an affection for oWoD, but think the 20th anniversary line does it a little better than the classic format. I'd never compare the new and old WoD because they're very different animals, but I think nWoD fulfills its mission statement better (Blood and Smoke even more so).

I knew it; we do have a lot in common. Basically, all the games you mention are the ones I enjoy too.


I ran a 4th Ed DnD campaign, and it was glorious - in the sense that it did what it intended so perfectly. An incredibly well designed game. But I think my loathing of fantasy began after 6 months of DnD....


I think nWoD is one of the best written game lines around (though WW has gone under, so I guess the books aren't on the market any more...). I ran a Vampire campaign some years ago, prior to discovering narrative games - they changed everything for me.


FATE was the first. I was so excited about its new ways of playing, and it basically ruined all traditional games for me. I could never go back to old-school games; I would hate spending so much time on numbers and rules instead of telling a good story.


As mentioned, I ran the Waste Space game with FATE very successfully, although I ended it after 8 sessions because it became too much like work.


As you may also know, I run an Apocalypse World game here on this site, which is by far one of the best playing experiences I've had. I have a hard time imagining playing any other system these days, and Modus will take a lot of cues from AW.


So are you running an AW game? Or have you ? If I could take a look at some texts, notes from one of your AW games, I would be happy.


I have begun writing a sort of Dogma for what roleplaying should be like and what is shouldn't be like; we disagree on some concepts, but I would love to get your input on that idea. I'll send it to you when its done (if that's okay)

 

[Grey]

I knew it; we do have a lot in common. Basically, all the games you mention are the ones I enjoy too.
I ran a 4th Ed DnD campaign, and it was glorious - in the sense that it did what it intended so perfectly. An incredibly well designed game. But I think my loathing of fantasy began after 6 months of DnD....


I think nWoD is one of the best written game lines around (though WW has gone under, so I guess the books aren't on the market any more...). I ran a Vampire campaign some years ago, prior to discovering narrative games - they changed everything for me.


FATE was the first. I was so excited about its new ways of playing, and it basically ruined all traditional games for me. I could never go back to old-school games; I would hate spending so much time on numbers and rules instead of telling a good story.


As mentioned, I ran the Waste Space game with FATE very successfully, although I ended it after 8 sessions because it became too much like work.


As you may also know, I run an Apocalypse World game here on this site, which is by far one of the best playing experiences I've had. I have a hard time imagining playing any other system these days, and Modus will take a lot of cues from AW.


So are you running an AW game? Or have you ? If I could take a look at some texts, notes from one of your AW games, I would be happy.


I have begun writing a sort of Dogma for what roleplaying should be like and what is shouldn't be like; we disagree on some concepts, but I would love to get your input on that idea. I'll send it to you when its done (if that's okay)

Actually, WW is now Onyx Path and they're still making games. New WoD line next year, in fact, and they just released Demon: The Descent. They've very clearly been taking cues from FATE for some of the design choices, but it's not a massive departure.


I haven't run AW yet, but I played in a game here on RPZ run by WlfSamurai which sadly ended early. It's called Desolation and might be in the archive. Now I'm in his Station 01 game which is shaping up nicely. We're wrapping up Hx.


Dogma is dangerous thing (unless it's bottled by Brew Dog, in which case it's delicious), so I'd be curious enough to take a look when it's done.

thanks Grey for your insightful response. I always appreciate people who can take criticism without being offended.
So my criticism is largely based on my own preferences for games and the philosophy behind them, so it is far from objective. But let me see if I can expand on it.


I am pleased that you agree that your game is old-school; nothing wrong with that. About the similar games; yep, Rolemaster is a horrible game. I think there were some tables that sparked that idea in my head, but it was a far fetched comparison.


A major factor that gave me flashbacks to the 80s were the lack of a style guide. I know it's early development, but even so, a style guide makes a huge difference. A good style guide will give advice on how to make better paragraphs, structures, which I think your book could benefit from.


Keep your paragraphs as short as possible - even down to one sentence, if it's long enough - and never over 5 lines. Go for the middle ground. Avoid huge blocks of texts. Your readers will thank you


When I use the word "realism", the quotes are there for a reason; games can't (and shouldn't) be realistic. A classic example is the Fatigue concept (both in your game and many others, most prominently GURPS). How is it any fun keeping score of how much your PC can carry, do, run, fight, etc?


In GURPS, the rule is there for absolutely no reason but to make sure that PCs get tired like we all do in real life. What a drag that is! Of course, your game isn't fully developed, so you might have a good reason for having it.


About the setting: There's nothing wrong with it, and if your players want more, then perhaps you should consider breaking it up into separate books. The setting would benefit from it, because you'd have to structure your fictional world into smaller bits and think about which ones are most likely to facilitate great roleplaying.


If your final draft uses that much space on setting - like half the book, before you get to the rules - that's a problem.


However, there is another solution, one that you hinted at yourself. Incorporate your rules in the setting description. Have boxes with stats for the characters, organisations and stuff. It would mean a revamp of the structure, but I think the book will be much better.


I like the fact that your rules can be repurposed to other settings. To keep things clean, you might even want to consider making a rules-only book, perhaps a quick-start rules book. No reason not to have separate PDFs with the setting, one with quickstart rules and one big PDF with both.


I hope you find some of that useful; if I wasn't clear on something, let me know.

I'm not worrying about a style guide until it's finished. That seems like part of the editing process, to me.


While I take your point that it's hard to make a game very realistic, I find having those elements is good for verisimilitude and tone. Fatigue as it is now exists to make combat tense, especially between evenly matched opponents - do you fight conservatively and wait for the enemy to tire, or try to strike them down quickly before the exertion gets the better of you?


Fatigue is also one of the rules which exists to be broken. A lot of 'realistic' mechanical decisions were made to be broken by monsters - take the Fatigue away from a zombie and it becomes a lot more threatening.


Spreading it out might be interesting, but the rule section is comparatively brief (the injury tables make it look a lot longer) - too brief to fill a .pdf by itself. Certainly far too brief for me to feel comfortable selling it. Though I haven't yet added the GM section which should cover other oddities like Witches and Diabolists

 

[Eske]

Dogma is dangerous thing (unless it's bottled by Brew Dog, in which case it's delicious), so I'd be curious enough to take a look when it's done.


I'm not worrying about a style guide until it's finished. That seems like part of the editing process, to me.


While I take your point that it's hard to make a game very realistic, I find having those elements is good for verisimilitude and tone. Fatigue as it is now exists to make combat tense, especially between evenly matched opponents - do you fight conservatively and wait for the enemy to tire, or try to strike them down quickly before the exertion gets the better of you?


Fatigue is also one of the rules which exists to be broken. A lot of 'realistic' mechanical decisions were made to be broken by monsters - take the Fatigue away from a zombie and it becomes a lot more threatening.


Spreading it out might be interesting, but the rule section is comparatively brief (the injury tables make it look a lot longer) - too brief to fill a .pdf by itself. Certainly far too brief for me to feel comfortable selling it. Though I haven't yet added the GM section which should cover other oddities like Witches and Diabolists

The Dogma idea is mainly just to clarify what I find important in games - kind of a springboard for Modus...and yes, you will by definition disagree on some of the points, but that could spark some interesting discussions.


About style guides: Yes, you can postpone style until the editing phase, but don't a lot of people read your book? Playtesters? I guarantee you that you will get a larger audience if you do some minor style tweaking. Small things that don't require any effort, like breaking up paragraphs like I mentioned (this is a big deal - for readability and the reader's reason for continuing reading). I can give you some pointers on the most important bits that you can do without increasing your work load.


So your intent is to actually sell your game? That is very ambitious, and makes the project a lot more interesting. Do you have a plan? Will the fantasy setting be the flagship book?


I suggest that you divide your material this way: Pick out the best bits of your setting and add the rules; that's the main book. Then make pure setting PDFs. Also, what did you think about the idea of having rules incorporated in the setting text? Not in the prose, but in separate spaces, like boxes in the margin or something similar.


lastly, Fatigue....if it really does enhance the combat - and not just give the players more options, but make the combat more exciting - then it's okay. But in general, I suggest that you apply the same thinking to all your rule elements: do they really add excitement, and not just options? It might be a good idea to thin out the ruleset, or at least not add anything that's essential.


I have more things to say,, but let me post this now...

 

[Grey]

Well, I'd appreciate tips that would improve readability if you have them.


I don't have a solid plan yet, but the idea is that yes, the Dark Age will be the flagship, bundled with the Darkening Skies variant and shortly followed by Dark Age Slayers. I may Kickstart it at some point (to pay an artist and editor, maybe another writer), but I'm not in a hurry to start selling.


Here's another philosophical disagreement - since players primarily express their agency in the game via decision-making, I think taking choices away hurts the game. I will be evaluating it for mechanical bloat anyway.

 

[Alexandra]

The Dogma idea is mainly just to clarify what I find important in games - kind of a springboard for Modus...and yes, you will by definition disagree on some of the points, but that could spark some interesting discussions.
About style guides: Yes, you can postpone style until the editing phase, but don't a lot of people read your book? Playtesters? I guarantee you that you will get a larger audience if you do some minor style tweaking. Small things that don't require any effort, like breaking up paragraphs like I mentioned (this is a big deal - for readability and the reader's reason for continuing reading). I can give you some pointers on the most important bits that you can do without increasing your work load.


So your intent is to actually sell your game? That is very ambitious, and makes the project a lot more interesting. Do you have a plan? Will the fantasy setting be the flagship book?


I suggest that you divide your material this way: Pick out the best bits of your setting and add the rules; that's the main book. Then make pure setting PDFs. Also, what did you think about the idea of having rules incorporated in the setting text? Not in the prose, but in separate spaces, like boxes in the margin or something similar.


lastly, Fatigue....if it really does enhance the combat - and not just give the players more options, but make the combat more exciting - then it's okay. But in general, I suggest that you apply the same thinking to all your rule elements: do they really add excitement, and not just options? It might be a good idea to thin out the ruleset, or at least not add anything that's essential.


I have more things to say,, but let me post this now...

I've decided to tack this onto your most recent reply, though really, I could have probably added it to any of the above.


I've spotted a problem here, and it seems as though you're coming at the advice giving purely from a matter of personal taste; which, in my experience, is rarely useful for a creator to receive.


As writers, artists, creators in general who want to help our peers, an important thing to learn to be able to do is pin down whether or not the work in progress is achieving its goals or not. For the purposes of what I'm posting now; "good" is defined as;


adjective - having the required qualities; of a high standard.


"good" is currently not "a thing that I like".


Now, I come at the creative process primarily as an artist; it's where all my education and experience lies. I took an awful lot away from my graphic design course, especially the lectures and debates on "good design", and those kinds of philosophies can easily be applied to roleplay game creation, not just 2D visuals. At the end of the day, everything is a product, and good product design has rules.


Functional, innovative, aesthetically pleasing, useful, intuitive, honest, long-lasting, unobtrusive, thorough - all these, and a handful more, in varying combinations make up good design. To see whether or not Crucible is "good", we need to examine its aims, and how well it meets its aims in terms of design principles.


The game was designed, among other things, to appeal to people who don't usually enjoy fantasy all that much. Fantasy has developed a bit of a reputation with some roleplayers as being less meaty, less emotionally complex, and prone to monster of the week or dungeon crawling. And I will freely admit to liking more complex games (not necessarily system, but a game where we as players or GMs can easily explore complex situations or themes), but more to the point, I enjoy extremely functional games; games that deliver exactly what they set out to do in the simplest way possible.


Legend of the Five Rings immediately springs to mind when I think of a dam near flawless game. The system isn't particularly difficult to get a handle on with a little reading. The specifics of character creation, and progression help reinforce the feudal class structure inherent in the setting (which is *very* extensive). Everything about the system helps reinforce the theme, mood, and tone of the setting; it is a game of delicate courtly intrigue, a game of spiritual balance, *and* a game of stunning feats of heroism. All this combines into what can be an extremely nuanced roleplaying experience, a swashbuckling action-adventure, or something in between, depending on the temperament of the gaming group, and storytelling preferences of the GM. But you are provided with an abundance of tools to work with.


So, according to the design rules laid out, L5R is a good game. It may not appeal to everyone, but there is a distinct difference between personal taste, and actual product quality.


On to something you wrote above; that last bit, about excitement. I would like some clarification. I don't really see how the addition of "excitement" is relevant. The primary goal of a system is to be a functional set of mechanics that allow the players' characters to affect their environment. In the case of Crucible, the system is reasonably well meshed with the setting, and quite genre specific; Dark Fantasy. it's important to remember that genre matters in rules creation as it will influence the complexity of rules and level of realism.


If combat rules flow smoothly, then they support the GM's (hopefully thrilling) narration. Bam. You have your excitement. I fully agree that clunky, overly complicated rules slow everything down, break immersion, and generally piss people off.


I know badly-designed systems piss me off; I GM at conventions, and have to be able to teach someone the basics of how combat will work in under ten minutes. With Crucible, like WoD, Call of Cthulhu, FATE and a few others, I can do it in five. That is my kind of two part litmus test; how fast can I get a handle on it to run a scenario, and how fast can I teach a newbie combat basics.


I'm not sure where to go with my train of thought from here; I could talk for hours about running games, and game design - I've been writing, running and reading them for so long now.


I'll have some tea and come back to the thread later.

 

[Eske]

R322l3å2/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////26 d

I've decided to tack this onto your most recent reply, though really, I could have probably added it to any of the above.
I've spotted a problem here, and it seems as though you're coming at the advice giving purely from a matter of personal taste; which, in my experience, is rarely useful for a creator to receive.


As writers, artists, creators in general who want to help our peers, an important thing to learn to be able to do is pin down whether or not the work in progress is achieving its goals or not. For the purposes of what I'm posting now; "good" is defined as;


adjective - having the required qualities; of a high standard.


"good" is currently not "a thing that I like".


Now, I come at the creative process primarily as an artist; it's where all my education and experience lies. I took an awful lot away from my graphic design course, especially the lectures and debates on "good design", and those kinds of philosophies can easily be applied to roleplay game creation, not just 2D visuals. At the end of the day, everything is a product, and good product design has rules.


Functional, innovative, aesthetically pleasing, useful, intuitive, honest, long-lasting, unobtrusive, thorough - all these, and a handful more, in varying combinations make up good design. To see whether or not Crucible is "good", we need to examine its aims, and how well it meets its aims in terms of design principles.


The game was designed, among other things, to appeal to people who don't usually enjoy fantasy all that much. Fantasy has developed a bit of a reputation with some roleplayers as being less meaty, less emotionally complex, and prone to monster of the week or dungeon crawling. And I will freely admit to liking more complex games (not necessarily system, but a game where we as players or GMs can easily explore complex situations or themes), but more to the point, I enjoy extremely functional games; games that deliver exactly what they set out to do in the simplest way possible.


Legend of the Five Rings immediately springs to mind when I think of a dam near flawless game. The system isn't particularly difficult to get a handle on with a little reading. The specifics of character creation, and progression help reinforce the feudal class structure inherent in the setting (which is *very* extensive). Everything about the system helps reinforce the theme, mood, and tone of the setting; it is a game of delicate courtly intrigue, a game of spiritual balance, *and* a game of stunning feats of heroism. All this combines into what can be an extremely nuanced roleplaying experience, a swashbuckling action-adventure, or something in between, depending on the temperament of the gaming group, and storytelling preferences of the GM. But you are provided with an abundance of tools to work with.


So, according to the design rules laid out, L5R is a good game. It may not appeal to everyone, but there is a distinct difference between personal taste, and actual product quality.


On to something you wrote above; that last bit, about excitement. I would like some clarification. I don't really see how the addition of "excitement" is relevant. The primary goal of a system is to be a functional set of mechanics that allow the players' characters to affect their environment. In the case of Crucible, the system is reasonably well meshed with the setting, and quite genre specific; Dark Fantasy. it's important to remember that genre matters in rules creation as it will influence the complexity of rules and level of realism.


If combat rules flow smoothly, then they support the GM's (hopefully thrilling) narration. Bam. You have your excitement. I fully agree that clunky, overly complicated rules slow everything down, break immersion, and generally piss people off.


I know badly-designed systems piss me off; I GM at conventions, and have to be able to teach someone the basics of how combat will work in under ten minutes. With Crucible, like WoD, Call of Cthulhu, FATE and a few others, I can do it in five. That is my kind of two part litmus test; how fast can I get a handle on it to run a scenario, and how fast can I teach a newbie combat basics.


I'm not sure where to go with my train of thought from here; I could talk for hours about running games, and game design - I've been writing, running and reading them for so long now.


I'll have some tea and come back to the thread later.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on this. I appreciate your thoughtful and construcctive style.


I don't recall saying whether or not Crucible was a "bad" or "good" game, although I might have come close. I have some issues with it, some completely subjective, but I make sure that I point that out. For example, when I talk about my "hate"" of fantasy, it's not a mystery whether or not that's a subjective statement.


The main idea in your thread is that the quality of a game is relative to the intentions of the author's goals. Is that a correct paraphrasing?


It is a very academic way of looking at things. It might have merit in a class room, but if you leave the classroom and enter the real world, it's obvious that it is impossible to be objective.


An example: Think of a game designer who wants to make an RPG where 75% of the character sheet is devoted to different types of goats the players are going to encounter. He finishes the game, and since "good" is solely based on whether or not the game fulfils its mission statement - well then hat game is good. No opinions are needed.


That might be an extreme example, but you get the point, I hope.


The word "good" does not have one single definition; language is constantly changing and people use the word "good" it in all kinds of ways.


You can't judge something without some degree of subjectivity. You can aspire to objectivity, and the closer you come the better.


Pkeasem continue your train of thought; it is an important topic for discussion.

 

[Eske]

Well, I'd appreciate tips that would improve readability if you have them.
Here's another philosophical disagreement - since players primarily express their agency in the game via decision-making, I think taking choices away hurts the game. I will be evaluating it for mechanical bloat anyway.

I would agree that taking choices away from the players is a bad idea;however, choices really shouldn't be based directly on rules like Fatigue or any other rule.


Choices should come from the players, not indirectly from the creator of the game. Choices should be based on the fiction the group has created. I think that's a very important distinction.


I consider rules that support the fiction of the game the most interesting. An example of this is Aspects from FATE; those are rules that lets the players decide what is important to the game and in turn, the fiction.


Since you already plan on thinning out the rules to avoid bloating, I think your game will become much better. I would do it in the diametrical opposite way; I would start with the absolute minimum of rules and then add rules when they become necessary for the game's fiction to work. (If you remember the premise of my game Modus, you'd know exactly what I mean).


Regarding readability; I am going to repeat myself here because of its importance:


Avoid long paragraphs, go for the shortest possible instead. If you ever get to the point where an editor gets to work on your game, this will help him immensely, and more importantly, having short paragraphs makes it easier to structure your text.


Not to point fingers or anything, but take a look at Alexandria's post just two posts up. While she has some very good points, her text is one, long, uninterrupted block of text. Breaking it up will help her write better and increase readability.


Also, make more sub-headings. Since your text is in development, making sure what's what is essential, and having a lot of sub-chapter titles will help you a lot when you are editing it into a more coherent narrative.


I am forgetting something really important here. Will be back!

 

[Grey]

I would agree that taking choices away from the players is a bad idea;however, choices really shouldn't be based directly on rules like Fatigue or any other rule.
Choices should come from the players, not indirectly from the creator of the game. Choices should be based on the fiction the group has created. I think that's a very important distinction.

I think I will provide some necessary context here: When I want to write fiction, I go and write fiction. Examples of my work litter the Creativity forum. I play RPGs for a different reason, and run RPGs for a different reason. The game element is of equal importance to the narrative element, for me. I do not feel that a mechanical choice is a less valid choice than one based in the fiction.


Besides which, as the game's creator, I am directing the experience to certain ends. If a player group just wants to create a collaborative fiction then this is not the game for them. They can devise their own setting. They do not need me.


But not everyone has the time, energy, or ability to produce a functional setting, or rules to support it.

I consider rules that support the fiction of the game the most interesting. An example of this is Aspects from FATE; those are rules that lets the players decide what is important to the game and in turn, the fiction.

I agree, but think you are two narrow in your estimation of supporting rules.

Since you already plan on thinning out the rules to avoid bloating, I think your game will become much better. I would do it in the diametrical opposite way; I would start with the absolute minimum of rules and then add rules when they become necessary for the game's fiction to work. (If you remember the premise of my game Modus, you'd know exactly what I mean).

I will be evaluating it for bloat. This is not the same thing as thinning it down.

Regarding readability; I am going to repeat myself here because of its importance:


Avoid long paragraphs, go for the shortest possible instead. If you ever get to the point where an editor gets to work on your game, this will help him immensely, and more importantly, having short paragraphs makes it easier to structure your text.


Not to point fingers or anything, but take a look at Alexandria's post just two posts up. While she has some very good points, her text is one, long, uninterrupted block of text. Breaking it up will help her write better and increase readability.


Also, make more sub-headings. Since your text is in development, making sure what's what is essential, and having a lot of sub-chapter titles will help you a lot when you are editing it into a more coherent narrative.

I personally experience no difficulty with the structure of her post. It's less wall-of-text than many novels I've read.


But I'll survey players to determine if this is a persistent problem with a universal solution.


Actually, would @Silvertongued, @The Fuzz, or @Cthulhu_Wakes like to chime in anywhere?

 

[Eske]

I think I will provide some necessary context here: When I want to write fiction, I go and write fiction. Examples of my work litter the Creativity forum. I play RPGs for a different reason, and run RPGs for a different reason. The game element is of equal importance to the narrative element, for me. I do not feel that a mechanical choice is a less valid choice than one based in the fiction.
Besides which, as the game's creator, I am directing the experience to certain ends. If a player group just wants to create a collaborative fiction then this is not the game for them. They can devise their own setting. They do not need me.


But not everyone has the time, energy, or ability to produce a functional setting, or rules to support it.


I agree, but think you are two narrow in your estimation of supporting rules.


I will be evaluating it for bloat. This is not the same thing as thinning it down.


I personally experience no difficulty with the structure of her post. It's less wall-of-text than many novels I've read.


But I'll survey players to determine if this is a persistent problem with a universal solution.


Actually, would @Silvertongued, @The Fuzz, or @Cthulhu_Wakes like to chime in anywhere?

First off, when I talk about rules that support the fiction, I don't think about ruleless, diceless or "we're all GMs!" games. I agree that the game's author directs the game - in fact, what we're doing right now is an outsider is giving you notes on your direction. They may be crappy notes, but there's no reason not to at least look at them, right?


Aspects from FATE is the supreme example of rules supporting the fiction, but it's not like I think all rules should be like that.


I hope that you don't have the perception that I think Crucible is a bad game (as Alexandria implied). My criticism is


a) a springboard for general discussion of game design and


b) based on what I like in games and what I genuinely think would make your game better.


Read that as conceited as you want to


Regarding Alexandria's text; that was perhaps a poor example, since browsers can be set up to show pages in different ways. (Which is also a reason you should go for short paragraphs; when your game is ready for PDF, you'll have graphics and stuff, and that's where spacing and short paragraphs are essential.)


You mention the difference between gaming fiction and prose fiction; that is also something to consider when you write. You're writing a game, not a novel. Game texts need structure much more than prose. Which I think I also mentioned in my first review of your game; that the setting is written in a prose style, and that restructuring it will become necessary at some point.


But you don't have to take my word for the importance of avoiding large paragraphs; it is a recurring theme in many game design podcasts and blogs.


And yes, I would love to hear what your playtesters say about your game - if you have feedback from your players, please share it (even if it is shameless admiration ) I would really love to hear what they think, and more on how your games run in general.

 

[Eske]

Btw, I noticed you have more games in the oven. I assume that they are different beasts than Crucible, right? Which one should I read, if I wanted to see your range?

 

[Alexandra]

I don't recall saying whether or not Crucible was a "bad" or "good" game, although I might have come close. I have some issues with it, some completely subjective, but I make sure that I point that out. For example, when I talk about my "hate"" of fantasy, it's not a mystery whether or not that's a subjective statement.


The main idea in your thread is that the quality of a game is relative to the intentions of the author's goals. Is that a correct paraphrasing?


It is a very academic way of looking at things. It might have merit in a class room, but if you leave the classroom and enter the real world, it's obvious that it is impossible to be objective.


An example: Think of a game designer who wants to make an RPG where 75% of the character sheet is devoted to different types of goats the players are going to encounter. He finishes the game, and since "good" is solely based on whether or not the game fulfils its mission statement - well then hat game is good. No opinions are needed.


That might be an extreme example, but you get the point, I hope.

And that would be the best ever goat-encountering game. The best it could be.


But it doesn't mean anyone has to like it; taste will always be a determining factor. Personally, I wouldn't go for a goat-encounter game....though



was a fascinating thing that got made when people got really fond of a joke.
This goat-encountering game would be extremely niche, and unless he had created it as a response to people directly asking for such a game, our hypothetical writer will likely be hard-pressed to find a large audience. That's where personal preferences come into it. But luckily for us, Crucible has minimal goat encounters.


This is the point where functionality and marketability begin to interact with each other. A goat-encountering game would be an interesting oddity; hell, if it were a free pdf, I would download it just to have a look, and if it were functional I might try and run it for friends (like with Heavy Metal Magic). Sure, we might not take it as seriously as some World of Darkness, or 40k games, but different tones have their place.


Crucible has the potential to appeal to a much wider audience than those who like farm animals. Dark Fantasy; a game that explores complex themes, a game that allows for high-powered monster hunting, a game that allows for subtlety and politics. And a game like that needs rules. No real way around it. It also attracts the kinds of players who like functional systems that allow them multiple options for character creation and combat.


The main issue I have here is that your "constructive criticism" here seems to be based on your own personal tastes, and fondness for Apocaylpse World....and unless you have a design background, the style guide may be best left to people who have experience in editorial layout. Bite-sized bits of information have a tendency to interrupt flow; a game is not a website article.

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

I've a lot to say on this matter, so give me a little time to collect my thoughts.

 

[Eske]

And that would be the best ever goat-encountering game. The best it could be.
But it doesn't mean anyone has to like it; taste will always be a determining factor. Personally, I wouldn't go for a goat-encounter game....though



was a fascinating thing that got made when people got really fond of a joke.
This goat-encountering game would be extremely niche, and unless he had created it as a response to people directly asking for such a game, our hypothetical writer will likely be hard-pressed to find a large audience. That's where personal preferences come into it. But luckily for us, Crucible has minimal goat encounters.


This is the point where functionality and marketability begin to interact with each other. A goat-encountering game would be an interesting oddity; hell, if it were a free pdf, I would download it just to have a look, and if it were functional I might try and run it for friends (like with Heavy Metal Magic). Sure, we might not take it as seriously as some World of Darkness, or 40k games, but different tones have their place.


Crucible has the potential to appeal to a much wider audience than those who like farm animals. Dark Fantasy; a game that explores complex themes, a game that allows for high-powered monster hunting, a game that allows for subtlety and politics. And a game like that needs rules. No real way around it. It also attracts the kinds of players who like functional systems that allow them multiple options for character creation and combat.


The main issue I have here is that your "constructive criticism" here seems to be based on your own personal tastes, and fondness for Apocaylpse World....and unless you have a design background, the style guide may be best left to people who have experience in editorial layout. Bite-sized bits of information have a tendency to interrupt flow; a game is not a website article.

Regarding goats...yes, it would be the greatest game about goats - but as you point out, that only really matters if you don't hope to make money off it.


I said it in my first post: Fantasy is by far - very far - the most popular genre in RPGs. That alone will give Crucible a potentially huge market. And I agree that there is a market out there for Crucible. Again, I have never said that it was a bad game - I have always emphasised that my points were based on preferences.


Regarding the style guide; it's not like I am writing my own and I'm trying to push it on Grey's game.... There are several different style guides out there available for free, and any text posed for publication should use one. That is all I am saying. Try googling it.


Also, do you really think my criticism (in the sense of "giving feedback") is cruel or with the intent of destroying hope?


That is certainly not my bag. And even if feedback/criticism is subjective, it can still be valid. In fact, if you remove all subjective feedback, you really won't have much to say. As I wrote to Grey above, he is directing a game and I try to give him notes as an outsider - because I enjoy it and I think Grey is a good writer - that was the first thing I pointed out in my first thread.

 

[Alexandra]

<snip>
Also, do you really think my criticism (in the sense of "giving feedback") is cruel or with the intent of destroying hope?


That is certainly not my bag. And even if feedback/criticism is subjective, it can still be valid. In fact, if you remove all subjective feedback, you really won't have much to say. As I wrote to Grey above, he is directing a game and I try to give him notes as an outsider - because I enjoy it and I think Grey is a good writer - that was the first thing I pointed out in my first thread.

Of course not. If you were being snide or cruel, you wouldn't be getting any responses at all; we'd have already written you off.


What you are failing to understand is this; viewing Crucible through the lens of Apocalypse World and systems you like is not useful. I'm not implying you're trying to destroy hope; but the fact of the matter is that unless we attempt to grasp at some sort of objectivity in deconstructing game design, and our constructive criticism, all of this is hot air that doesn't help game development.

 

[Eske]

I agree completely that we should strive for objectivity when giving feedback. However, as I explained before, if you only listen to objective feedback, you will get very little.


Also, I am not that obsessed with AW I don't recall comparing Crucible with AW at any point...that would be ludicrous.


Here are some basic objective questions that will help me understand the game: Do you consider it to be a mainstream game or an indie game?


If you see it as an indie game, you're going against the stream of popular indie games that have sold well the last couple of years.


An issue with your game is the amount of prep needed. It may fit you perfectly, but it is certain that most gamers will see that amount of prep as work. Playtesters are usually willing to do a lot more prep than the average gamer; how will a GM handle the enormous setting and at the same time, create a story?


And I am now taking a commercial standpoint; what will stop your game from selling? What will sell it?


what are the strongest selling points of Crucible? Why should people buy this instead of DnD or any of the other triple-A fantasy titles?


Not that you have to do it like that - I would personally be satisfied with doing a small indie game and not necessarily make a lot of money...


And here's another main reason I hope we can continue this talk; I too am a fledgling game designer, and discussing these things is very helpful. And at some point, I might complete it enough for an alpha version - and having you people critizise it. What goes around comes around...

 

[Eske]

I've thought about the prep issue, and here's a solution that ties into the discussion about structure. What you can do is to write a chapter where you show exactly how GMs can put a game together without reading the entire book. Maybe even have some tables that show the different main factions and what conflicts can arise. New GMs can then use that as a starting point.


I think it's really important that people can play this game without everybody having to read the entire book.


I listen to a lot of game design podcasts, and there's a reoccurring problem with many indie RPGs: what most GMs forget is to check how well the game describes how to play it. The problem arises when there is no one to ask about the rules, and people have to rely completely on the book.

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

People actually play Kobolds Ate My Baby. Can you believe that? Barely any goats at all.

 

[Grey]

[QUOTE="Shining Lotus Sage]People actually play Kobolds Ate My Baby. Can you believe that? Barely any goats at all.

[/QUOTE]
I've played it. It's a lot of fun.


Anyway, I'm taking none of this as an attack or anything.


What you've told me so far is:


- Apply a style guide


- Cut as many rules as possible


- Cut as much fiction as possible


- Provide a playing guide


These will be taken care of in time, especially the last item which is already a work in progress.


As for other games, they're still in prototype phase (Journeyman, in the Resources: Other section of the site is probably something you'll enjoy when it's done but for now has some placeholder simplified Crucible rules).

 

[Eske]

Anyway, I'm taking none of this as an attack or anything.


What you've told me so far is:


- Apply a style guide


- Cut as many rules as possible


- Cut as much fiction as possible


- Provide a playing guide


These will be taken care of in time, especially the last item which is already a work in progress.


As for other games, they're still in prototype phase (Journeyman, in the Resources: Other section of the site is probably something you'll enjoy when it's done but for now has some placeholder simplified Crucible rules).

Well, I would like to expand a little on what I am talking about.


I don't think you should cut as many rules as you can - I think you should take a look at your last couple of playtests and try to remember which rule concepts really added something to the game, and just as important, which rules didn't add that much. So it's a question of diminishing returns; does the rule add enough for you to implement it.


Regarding your fiction, I don't think you should cut anything; I think you should restructure it. Find the very best parts of your fiction - your own favorites - and present them with ideas for game stories. The rest of the fiction should either be in a separate PDF or as an appendix to the book; that gives you a good structure: 1. Here's the world we play in, 2. this is how we play, and 3: here's more places and people for when you've used them all from the start settings.


A player guide is especially interesting for me too, because a really good player's guide reminds you of why you're playing and how to specifically play your game.


I am very close to posting an example of what you can do with my game Modus, and I would love to discuss what makes for the best type of guide. I'm leaning towards something like in Apocalypse World, where everybody has Agendas and principles. Welldefined roles is key to a good guide I think.

 

[Grey]

I can certainly experiment with this restructuring.